Microsoft promises free game after online woes

Certis wrote:

You were right on the first count. The free game thing doesn't mean much to me, as a customer.

OK so if I understand you right (forgive me, I'm a bit thick tonight), you are saying that we should give Microsoft some slack because Live has been a good service overall. If that's what you are saying, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My belief is that when you are paying for something on a recurring basis, it doesn't matter if it worked yesterday, it matters if it works now. This is all the more relevant for people who just got 360s and can't use them online (like my brother-in-law who is not terribly impressed with Live so far) which I think you'll agree is a more pivotal component of the 360 than the other two consoles. If my Internet wasn't down yesterday but it is today for no good reason (and not predicting that your console would sell well at Christmas is not a good reason) and I have urgent e-mail to send, I'm justified in being upset. And I cannot agree that outages like this should be expected. An announced outage for maintenance is one thing but extended unplanned downtime is not a cost of doing business. I personally think that consumers as a whole are becoming too used to stuff not working and being of substandard quality to the point that no one gets upset anymore when things don't work, they just expect it. Considering the number of year-old defective wireless routers I've replaced with the same model lately, that seems to be the norm now. I may be too demanding but I really don't think so. Like I said, if I screw something up which negatively affects my client, the fact that I've done well by them before means that while they may agree to give me a chance to fix it and hire me again as a result, they still have every right to be upset and keep note of that mistake in the future.

Certis wrote:

I do not want to see this thread devolve into yet another Microsoft good or bad debate. Take it to its own thread if you want to go back and forth on that particular argument. Hint: you'll finish annoyed and you'll still be standing in the same place.

trip1ex, if you're wondering what I mean when I say you're a common participant in threads that go south, there's your answer. You've entered a thread about one particular issue, and tried to make it about something much broader. The whole "I don't really care BUT" and then listing a huge, comprehensive list of problems takes us nowhere good and again, drags the thread off topic into arguments as old as the Internet. Try and resist the urge to perpetuate these stale debates in threads that don't call for them.

Hey now. You also said something vague like "Sony hasn't created goodwill in a number of areas." Then you hassle me for stating specific examples of where MS hasn't created goodwill because some of my examples weren't directly related to Live?

I sense a double standard here.

You also give me no credit for my 2 360 specific examples of non-goodwill buildup. The 360's unreliability and massive failure rate. And Live's $50/yr charge for the use of your bandwidth and console to play others in online games plus the fact you still see advertisements on your interface.

You missed my point anyway. It wasn't to say MS is bad. I was just agreeing with the notion that there is a bit of a double-standard here. Part of my reasoning was that MS has done lots of not-building-up-goodwill stuff. Sony doesn't have a monopoly on that.

LIve is a great service. I think they overcharge for it based on what I know voice servers cost in the pc world, but it's a nice service.

Hey now. You also said something vague like "Sony hasn't created goodwill in a number of areas." Then you hassle me for stating specific examples of where MS hasn't created goodwill because some of my examples weren't directly related to Live?

I sense a double standard here. ;)

I'm not overly receptive to playing cute when you know exactly what I meant in that post.

You also give me no credit for my 2 360 specific examples of non-goodwill buildup.

Actually, I didn't mention it because when moderating, the opinion offered means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not here to question valid, on-topic points made when I'm wearing my moderator hat*. So yes, bravo for making the two points that were on topic and not designed to drag this thread into another flame war.

*Which is kind of like the Pope's hat, only with tassels ... if you're wondering.

*sigh*

Seriously. Ugh. Is this really that big of a deal? Microsoft absolutely made a mistake with the 360 hardware and when the RROD problem got too big they took care of it for the most part, no? They extended warranties, they replaced systems, they upgraded the 360. I can't believe I'm the Microsoft apologist right now.

My biggest problem with Microsoft currently is DRM and DLC. Namely the fact that it's so hard to recover games and purchased content if your system goes T-up. That and the lack of variety in games sometimes bugs me. But otherwise I think the 360 and Live is the best thing to happen to console gaming in quite a long time. I just spent the last 3 hours doing the following.

- Playing All Pro Football 2k8 with my little brother over Live
- Playing Carcassonne with my little brother over Live (he's a sports gamer/shooter fan who now plays Carcassonne thanks the XBLA)
- Chatted with my other brother over Live about Portal

My brothers live in the same city, but we're often terribly busy, work different shifts, etc. Live keeps us in touch like never before. $50 is a steal to me, a little downtime or not. I think what's most stunning is how apoplectic people get about a little downtime, or in this case a service being sub-optimal off and on.

We're not talking your power going out your water being turned off. We're talking about a video game service. If you can't go a week without consistent Live service, you have bigger problems, IMHO.

Many believe that the reason this was sudden is not because of consumer demand but because the Live servers have been under attack. Microsoft has a massive network operations team and they know how to predict demand and scale their network. Microsoft will never admit to being attacked but if they were, that would explain this in a way I could appreciate. If they just didn't scale up enough, that means they didn't plan properly and the situation was certainly beyond their control.

For what its worth.. I was told that the issue was directly related to "technologies" Microsoft implemented for the Holiday "rush" to do load balancing.

I think I found the problem. I did a little investigating, and it turns out that Live uses... Microsoft Servers! Poor bastards.

Awesome story there, Jayhawker.

If we're on the 'what should Microsoft do to fix things' bandwagon, they should upgrade the Xbox Live Voice to be more like Ventrilo in sound quality.

But yeah, the Xbox Live outage hasn't been good, and I'm glad Microsoft recognizes that and is trying to do something about it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and blame management for this. Not you, Certis, MS management. The engineers probably knew about the problems but management didn't want to spend money fixing them when things worked "well enough as it is" and an engineer's valuable time could be spent increasing capacity or working on the next dashboard update or something.

That said, I think these kinds of things are to be expected. Technology isn't perfect. A scant ten years ago, you'd be lucky if your ISP didn't do this, and worse, for days at a time.

When MS says they're disappointed with their performance, I don't feel like it's a politician saying they're disappointed, where what they really mean is, "if I act sorry enough you'll pretend it never happened." I think they genuinely feel they could've done better, even if from most accounts this kind of thing was inevitable (and is covered in the user agreement).

The fact that they're offering up a free game doesn't seem like a bribe or a cover to me. It seems like they felt that while they did live up to their side of the contract - which allows for this kind of event - they still want to make up for any loss of value the users perceive.

Let's say XBox Live was down for 2 weeks. Assuming you've paid $50 for 12 months of service, you paid $1.92 for those two weeks. Games cost $5-$20. The math seems pretty generous to me.

Kinda have to agree after seeing what GG said. Not enough testing was done it seems, because they're still broke and i dont think the numbers on Live are still peaking.

I'm all for giving them slack, but i get mad enough to throw controlers when i try to jump on for a small amount of time just to have it wasted by trying to get into an actual game.

That's pretty funny. For what it's worth, I think the guy who is actually suing Microsoft over this is a tool. My discontent over the issues is one thing but I'm not going to ask for millions of dollars over it.

Good post Lobster. I didn't know those issues were covered in the user agreement. Looks like some moron suing Microsoft didn't do his homework before throwing his money at parasites. Why do people keep insisting on calling them "lawyers"?

Mr.Green wrote:

Why do people keep insisting on calling them "lawyers"?

Well, can you imagine the world without lawyers...

IMAGE(http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9378/sadako6wg8.jpg)

...disturbing, no?

Certis wrote:
Hey now. You also said something vague like "Sony hasn't created goodwill in a number of areas." Then you hassle me for stating specific examples of where MS hasn't created goodwill because some of my examples weren't directly related to Live?

I sense a double standard here. ;)

I'm not overly receptive to playing cute when you know exactly what I meant in that post.

You also give me no credit for my 2 360 specific examples of non-goodwill buildup.

Actually, I didn't mention it because when moderating, the opinion offered means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not here to question valid, on-topic points made when I'm wearing my moderator hat*. So yes, bravo for making the two points that were on topic and not designed to drag this thread into another flame war.

*Which is kind of like the Pope's hat, only with tassels ... if you're wondering.

So you can get away with saying "Sony hasn't created goodwill in a number of areas" and I can't get away with specifically mentioning a few examples of where MS hasn't created goodwill either?

That's a double double-standard if I ever saw one.

And I know if I would have vaguely said 'MS hasn't created goodwill in a number of areas' instead then I would have been criticized for making a vague generalization and asked to clarify it by the wolves.

YOu may see it as me trying to start some war. But honestly that's not the case. I just read the latest few posts before mine and replied to them as if in a conversation.

I honestly just didn't agree with your opinion is all and I agreed with the other poster.

Moderator stuff. - Certis

Appreciate the effort, but don't worry about it. - Certis

You know, it's not about being able to survive without Xbox Live. I can. I've done it. It's the simple fact that I'm still paying for something that isn't working properly. I don't care what it is (internet, utilities, netflix, WoW, etc), if it's not working and I'm still paying for it, there's a problem.

ranalin wrote:

I'm all for giving them slack, but i get mad enough to throw controlers when i try to jump on for a small amount of time just to have it wasted by trying to get into an actual game.

We had to give up on Halo 3 yesterday because it would take about 10 minutes to find enough players to start a match. Ridiculous.

We're talking about roughly $5 a month, though. If they offer a "refund" in the form of MS points for a couple weeks of spotty service, that's fine. I'll take that, personally. Having it be temporarily spotty isn't the end of the world to me.

I think the more important thing is that Microsoft has to realize that Live makes the XBox. Seeing what you're friends are playing, chatting with them over headsets, playing XBLA games together; all of that enhances the inherent value of the 360. Take it away and I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it becomes more of a toss-up as to which console is the better value. Live makes the 360 worth far more than it would be otherwise.

DSGamer wrote:

I think the more important thing is that Microsoft has to realize that Live makes the XBox. Seeing what you're friends are playing, chatting with them over headsets, playing XBLA games together; all of that enhances the inherent value of the 360. Take it away and I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it becomes more of a toss-up as to which console is the better value. Live makes the 360 worth far more than it would be otherwise.

This is some kind of truth that is so incredibly true the word has never had that much meaning before.

Without Live the 360 is an unreliable mess of a console. It really is the one thing that makes the console as great as it is. Think about it. What's Gears of War without Live? All the big successes MS has had on the 360 have more or less hinged on Live. The only exceptions would be games like Oblivion. Without Live do they sell 8.1 million copies of Halo 3? I don't think so. They still sell a ton of them but I think those numbers decrease substantially.

Thin_J wrote:

Without Live the 360 is an unreliable mess of a console. It really is the one thing that makes the console as great as it is. Think about it. What's Gears of War without Live? All the big successes MS has had on the 360 have more or less hinged on Live.

I disagree. Live is a wonderful platform for multiplayer but it is just a platform for multiplayer. This is kind of like saying Gamespy made some game succeed. That's not true; online play is what made Gears great, and while Live handles online play very well it's hardly the only way to do it.

I'm with tha Lobsta.
Live doesn't even offer a standard server browser or matchmaking system, so every game's multiplayer interface still has a learning curve and could suck (like the 2K sports games).

The friends list is nice, but why can't they make the cap on the list higher? We pay for this, unlike AIM, or ICQ which allow for many more friends.

Well then we disagree.

Live is far, far better designed and more fully featured than anything like Gamespy has ever been. I think you're understimating the number of sales of the console itself that have been brought on by the buzz about Live.

I'm the ultimate flaky gamer when it comes to keeping consoles/games. Not sure if you know that or not.

Let's just say that without Live I never buy a 360. Really. I just don't see it.

So as a result of Live I've purchased the following.

- XBox 360 - $400

- Approximately 11 XBLA games - Say an average of $7, so $77

- Approximately 12 retail 360 games (not counting Rock Band) - Say $40 average conservatively (counting used or cheap games), so $480

- Rock Band - $170

- Uncountable DLC

So Microsoft has conservatively made roughly $1127 off of me in under a year. Oh, plus $60 for Live.

Thin_J wrote:

Well then we disagree.

Live is far, far better designed and more fully featured than anything like Gamespy has ever been. I think you're understimating the number of sales of the console itself that have been brought on by the buzz about Live.

Hm. Perhaps.

I am a Live gold member, but I don't play other people online very often, especially total strangers. I can easily say that the 360 holds more value for me as a gamer than any other system (and I own a Wii, do not own a PS3. And, of course, excluding PC gaming, since we're talking about a console here). The Wii has some fun games that don't really hold up after a while and a few gems, but otherwise, I hardly turn the thing on. The PS3 has had nowhere NEAR the amount of games that would potentially interest me to justify a purchase. I waited until April of this year to buy a 360. I wish I had gotten one sooner. Live does not by any means make the experience for me. The games do.

nsmike wrote:

I waited until April of this year to buy a 360. I wish I had gotten one sooner. Live does not by any means make the experience for me. The games do.

Sure, but guys like you (or me, or probably anyone else on this board) are really the minority and aren't really where MS is making most of their money. You, me, most of us were going to buy it anyway once a few games we wanted came out. We're more or less guaranteed sales sooner or later. They're not worried about selling to us. They're worried about the 22 year old fratboys and the high school kids with jobs and disposable income.

Thin_J wrote:

They're not worried about selling to us. They're worried about the 22 year old fratboys and the high school kids with jobs and disposable income.

I'm... Only 25.

nsmike wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

They're not worried about selling to us. They're worried about the 22 year old fratboys and the high school kids with jobs and disposable income.

I'm... Only 25.

So am I. I still don't think we're the group that MS is making their money with. We're informed buyers, gamers, etc. Again, you, me, were were going to buy the thing anyway. They're not worried about guys like us because they know at some point there will be enough games to sell us the system. They need to nudge all those other people who might have waited for a PS3. I think Live is a great word of mouth selling point. All it takes is two guys from a group getting Madden and playing on Live after class and suddenly all their friends are buying one too. This is how it actually worked for me. One friend got one. He was the only one that had the system for months. Then I bought mine. As soon as the two of us started playing on Live and talking about it around others.. everybody started buying 360's so they could get in on the multiplayer. These are people that were planning on just skipping it and getting a PS3 that are picking up a 360 based on nothing more than the merits of Live. Think about how smooth the system generally is (these last few weeks excepted) and how impressive it can be to someone who's only previous experiences with online play are PC games with their somewhat unintuitive server browers and maybe the original Xbox with it's early, extremely unpolished, primitive, and arguably badly implemented version of Live itself. Everyone I showed Live to when I got my 360 was super impressed by the way the entire thing worked and it absolutely sold the system to them.

And look at these boards. How many people here picked up a 360 to play multiplayer with the GWJ folk as opposed to people who picked the system up to play a few singleplayer games? I'd wager you're far.. far in the minority. Even moreso when you move more toward the general consumer and less away from the people that frequent boards like this. Games like Oblivion or Mass Effect don't hurt.. but those are, and I don't think anyone will argue this, not a good representation of 90% of the 360's library.

It's just an opinion so feel free to refute it, it's just one that feels right to me. I'm not trying to be dense, though I'm sure I'm managing just fine. I'm just a little surprised at how much you're marginalizing Live's effect on 360 sales.

*edited multiple times, because I never finish a post until five minutes after I post it.*

XBOX LIVE is a differentiating competitive advantage no doubt. I dont see anyone catching up to it from a functionality perspective this generation.

Playing on LIVE with GWJers is a blast, but the fact is it also has a diverse library of games, both single and multi, online and offline. LIVE, combined with the fun of its still uncontested achievement / gamerscore system, the quality of its controller/accessory options and the games library itself all contribute to its adoption rates at this point. Its a compelling value proposition as it has seen the system through the hardware issues.

I dont think LIVE performance has been the same since the last dashboard update. I like the update itself, but maybe the combination of so many users updating their systems just before the holidays, Halo 3 and the new users it brought, and all the holiday 360's people got that likely required dashboard updates and resulted in new LIVE accounts has had it under an abnormal burden.