HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I guess even MS recognized that a lot of the real negativity regarding the XB1 came about after their official event. They're trying to control messaging a little more. It's smart, but it's also bad because now people are going to assume what SyphonBlue suggested.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
By the way, a new Deus Ex game was announced today. It's a mobile device game though. Now, I'm not going to suggest that they suddenly whipped this up within a month or two, but it made me think - when Square Enix said that they're going to change how they target products to any given region as well as rely on their mobile apps more, do you think this is their interpretation of what the western / NA audience wants? Mobile app versions of big hits?
I guess even MS recognized that a lot of the real negativity regarding the XB1 came about after their official event. They're trying to control messaging a little more. It's smart, but it's also bad because now people are going to assume what SyphonBlue suggested.
Even then, shouldn't the lesson be 'Get better at talking about sensitive things' rather than 'We're just not gonna talk about it'?
I guess even MS recognized that a lot of the real negativity regarding the XB1 came about after their official event. They're trying to control messaging a little more. It's smart, but it's also bad because now people are going to assume what SyphonBlue suggested.
Even then, shouldn't the lesson be 'Get better at talking about sensitive things' rather than 'We're just not gonna talk about it'?
Are they at least replacing it with something?
John Walker wrote a couple months ago at RPS about how the video game industry is plagued with this sort of behavior. That when a company stops addressing something, even when asked, it eventually goes away within the press, and this is a bad thing because it's a form of letting companies get away with distasteful things. At the time he wrote it, he was addressing Electronic Arts. It's possible that MS is going to be the next example of this.
Isn't that the opposite of controlling the message? If they don't even allow people to ask questions then the message isn't the PR bullshit they spout during the presentation, the message is all of the unanswered questions and the assumptions people are going to make because they didn't answer any questions.
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I was going to observe that Wii U sales didn't pick up but I realized that Japan isn't hot for Microsoft to begin with (curious to see if Wii U sales in other regions are actually up as a result of most of the cards being on the table, when it comes to consoles). Nintendo has gotta have a good E3 showing. Or... a good showing during E3 which isn't actually a part of E3 because they are weird.
I like how SMT fell 84% week on week but it's still third place. Hot diggity damn.
I guess even MS recognized that a lot of the real negativity regarding the XB1 came about after their official event. They're trying to control messaging a little more. It's smart, but it's also bad because now people are going to assume what SyphonBlue suggested.
Even then, shouldn't the lesson be 'Get better at talking about sensitive things' rather than 'We're just not gonna talk about it'?
Are they at least replacing it with something?
Especially since so much of the rage was reading between the lines of what was unsaid. If they leave any ambiguity and then just walk out the door, the Internet hate machine will take the worst possible interpretation and run with it.
And they will leave something ambiguous, because they're gutless PR suits and what they have to confer is wildly unpopular.
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Isn't that the opposite of controlling the message? If they don't even allow people to ask questions then the message isn't the PR bullshit they spout during the presentation, the message is all of the unanswered questions and the assumptions people are going to make because they didn't answer any questions.
It's an "out of sight, out of mind" thing. When you give nothing to the press, the press has nothing to report on. And in the interest of having to print things, they move on, and eventually stop prodding the situation. It is 100% control. It's a little more exasperated in the UK because of the laws regarding libel / slander (the hands of the press are pretty tied up there), but it hits NA too.
Isn't that the opposite of controlling the message? If they don't even allow people to ask questions then the message isn't the PR bullshit they spout during the presentation, the message is all of the unanswered questions and the assumptions people are going to make because they didn't answer any questions.
Since most game news sites are nearly de facto industry mouthpieces, if the company doesn't say anything, then nothing gets reported. I think both companies basically want to keep quiet as much as they can until the consoles are in peoples' hands and then let shit sort itself out afterwards.
I can see it either being them wanting to control the message or the rumors that they're six months behind schedule are true. If it's the latter, then they may still be finalizing deals, systems and specifications. Sony didn't want to reveal the physical machine during their reveal because they said as much, and Microsoft's behavior could be a more extreme version of that. I just hope the rush to beat or match each other out the door this holiday doesn't hurt either system. The Xbox 360 launched first and gained a decent lead, but it also gave consumers unstable hardware. I don't want to see a repeat of the red ring of death with the Xbox One.
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
I guess even MS recognized that a lot of the real negativity regarding the XB1 came about after their official event. They're trying to control messaging a little more. It's smart, but it's also bad because now people are going to assume what SyphonBlue suggested.
Though this pretty much guarantees all the articles will read "okay, Microsoft told us this, this and this, but they STILL haven't clarified on this and this, which are the same questions we asked when they wouldn't clarify the first time around, etc."
In other words this will annoy almost every journalist covering this into asking some VERY skeptical questions in the article, which will remind readers just how baffling the situation is. Which is kinda the opposite of good PR.
Then again, EA never had to do a big re-announcement for SimCity. Microsoft pretty much has to talk about the Xbone again, which will reiterate the questions everyone raised.
They may simply be replacing one event with another event, on the back of last minute deals/expectations. Who knows.
I think we need some more 'wait and see' attitudes right now. No need to jump the gun on every little detail. Let's allow Microsoft to fail in their own time.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Damn it Auto, stop taking away my thunder by linking to what I was talking about! :P
By the way, what are the odds that Microsoft is changing their E3 presentation and it's changes that would warrant a hail of questions from the press but they want to avoid that? Guess we'll find out in a week right?
On a far more important note, one Redditor asks "What percent of users actually pay real money in Zynga games?" You know—how many people were actually generating money for the company?
The answer is complicated: "Depends on the game, but on average I think it's about 5%. Maybe less." That sounds low, but: "The big games deal in Millions of DAU (Daily Average Users). If 3 million users pay an average of $0.20 you're getting $600k a day!"
They also cop to (and lament) the company's dark reputation for ripping off competitors—what was internally referred to as a "fast follow," a terrific little euphemism. Employees hated being forced to do this, but it became Zynga's bread and butter:
I think that early on it was blatant. Later it became well known practice at Zynga, but rather poor taste. Dream Heights/Tiny Tower was a big slap in the face. Sims Social/The Ville was the last straw. Towards the end of my time it was not so much that games were straight up ripped off, but key features would be. Such as the general method or menu flow that a game handles it's multiplayer. The idea being that if it works for that game, it would work for our game.
In general though, most of us knew what game was copying what. Bubble Safari was a copy of Bubble Witch Saga. The Ville was Sims Social. Hidden Chronicles was Gardens of Time. The company didn't call it out for what it was, but you knew because whatever project you were on most likely had similar pressures to match and beat a game on the market.
I'm going to have to remember that term.
+4
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
On a far more important note, one Redditor asks "What percent of users actually pay real money in Zynga games?" You know—how many people were actually generating money for the company?
The answer is complicated: "Depends on the game, but on average I think it's about 5%. Maybe less." That sounds low, but: "The big games deal in Millions of DAU (Daily Average Users). If 3 million users pay an average of $0.20 you're getting $600k a day!"
They also cop to (and lament) the company's dark reputation for ripping off competitors—what was internally referred to as a "fast follow," a terrific little euphemism. Employees hated being forced to do this, but it became Zynga's bread and butter:
I think that early on it was blatant. Later it became well known practice at Zynga, but rather poor taste. Dream Heights/Tiny Tower was a big slap in the face. Sims Social/The Ville was the last straw. Towards the end of my time it was not so much that games were straight up ripped off, but key features would be. Such as the general method or menu flow that a game handles it's multiplayer. The idea being that if it works for that game, it would work for our game.
In general though, most of us knew what game was copying what. Bubble Safari was a copy of Bubble Witch Saga. The Ville was Sims Social. Hidden Chronicles was Gardens of Time. The company didn't call it out for what it was, but you knew because whatever project you were on most likely had similar pressures to match and beat a game on the market.
I'm going to have to remember that term.
Usually I have to take a fast follow after eating spicy food.
Isn't that the opposite of controlling the message? If they don't even allow people to ask questions then the message isn't the PR bullshit they spout during the presentation, the message is all of the unanswered questions and the assumptions people are going to make because they didn't answer any questions.
It's an "out of sight, out of mind" thing. When you give nothing to the press, the press has nothing to report on. And in the interest of having to print things, they move on, and eventually stop prodding the situation. It is 100% control. It's a little more exasperated in the UK because of the laws regarding libel / slander (the hands of the press are pretty tied up there), but it hits NA too.
When you give nothing to the press the press has nothing to report on except speculation. You're gambling that the resulting wild ass ranting either isn't as bad as the truth you're covering up, or isn't interesting enough to stick in the news cycle.
They may be right about the second option in the mainstream press. They're dead wrong about both among enthusiasts, who unfortunately are going to be the early adopters and set the initial narrative.
I guess even MS recognized that a lot of the real negativity regarding the XB1 came about after their official event. They're trying to control messaging a little more. It's smart, but it's also bad because now people are going to assume what SyphonBlue suggested.
People keep talking about how Microsoft is "controlling the message". I don't even know what this means anymore. I thought it meant making sure that you set yourself up as the only reliable source of factual information so rumors don't spread. Microsoft is not doing this. The stuff they say is so ephermal and vague that it creates MORE rumors.
When you refuse to comment on rumors, I can see how that's maybe a viable way to control a message. But not commenting on their own damn event? That's not controlling the message, that's not HAVING a message.
Microsoft's "message" right now is this: "There is literally nothing we could possibly say in plain English that would make our product sound appealing. We're hoping that if we say nothing at all, sheer ignorance will lead to people believing every word of our commercials and give us money out of blind optimism." Their message is that they think their product is objectively bad and they think only uninformed consumers will buy it. If they have a better message than that, they need to start talking. Actually talking, not just running promotional material. They're doing the exact opposite, and that inspires the exact opposite of confidence in an informed consumer.
It worked for EA because you can make a profit by selling a couple million units of a game in the first couple of days before word of mouth catches up with you. You cannot make a profit on an entire console division off of week one sales alone, so what's the point of being silent?
Counterpoint: So much of the 'x-factor' of their new console is tied up in things that rely upon ironclad contracts with TV companies and studios. I think we can excuse them some delays and last-minute changes if things aren't yet set in stone, especially if they end up being legitimately awesome. Microsoft don't have a big first-party stable, but they do have endless pockets full of cash. If they want to buy their way to success, who am I to judge them if the final product is worthy? Ends justify the means, right?
Then again, EA never had to do a big re-announcement for SimCity. Microsoft pretty much has to talk about the Xbone again, which will reiterate the questions everyone raised.
I think they're hoping to throw down a big list of games, and hope that consumers will buy the console because of those games, sight unseen.
We need more datapoints, but according to the few we have, it's working. Even without games at the moment.
MS says something: "OH MY GOD THEY DIDN'T SAY THIS OTHER THING!"
MS says nothing: "OH MY GOD THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!"
People are going so far as to speculate "well, it's not REALLY a game console, I bet this is their way of getting out of the business". I just don't see how anything but "Here's our games. Bam." with a mic drop walkoff is even a starter. I mean any conference they have, regardless of intended topic, is going to be hours of "WHY DOESN'T IT HAVE AN OFF SWITCH?!!" and "I DON'T WANT YOU WATCHING ME IN THE SHOWER!!!", I'd cancel that shit too.
I'm still laughing at that second link. Pre order records at Blockbuster.
That could be like twelve. I don't know why Microsoft doesn't want to answer questions but I hope it goes poorly for them. Having no 'front' in this age should be viewed as a slap in the face to consumers who just want information.
On a far more important note, one Redditor asks "What percent of users actually pay real money in Zynga games?" You know—how many people were actually generating money for the company?
The answer is complicated: "Depends on the game, but on average I think it's about 5%. Maybe less." That sounds low, but: "The big games deal in Millions of DAU (Daily Average Users). If 3 million users pay an average of $0.20 you're getting $600k a day!"
They also cop to (and lament) the company's dark reputation for ripping off competitors—what was internally referred to as a "fast follow," a terrific little euphemism. Employees hated being forced to do this, but it became Zynga's bread and butter:
I think that early on it was blatant. Later it became well known practice at Zynga, but rather poor taste. Dream Heights/Tiny Tower was a big slap in the face. Sims Social/The Ville was the last straw. Towards the end of my time it was not so much that games were straight up ripped off, but key features would be. Such as the general method or menu flow that a game handles it's multiplayer. The idea being that if it works for that game, it would work for our game.
In general though, most of us knew what game was copying what. Bubble Safari was a copy of Bubble Witch Saga. The Ville was Sims Social. Hidden Chronicles was Gardens of Time. The company didn't call it out for what it was, but you knew because whatever project you were on most likely had similar pressures to match and beat a game on the market.
I'm going to have to remember that term.
So, as someone who works at the company in question, I obviously can't really comment publicly because it would probably get me in trouble if I went around doing that.
But I can suggest people read that Reddit if they are at all curious about what the company is like.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
MS says something: "OH MY GOD THEY DIDN'T SAY THIS OTHER THING!"
MS says nothing: "OH MY GOD THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!"
People are going so far as to speculate "well, it's not REALLY a game console, I bet this is their way of getting out of the business". I just don't see how anything but "Here's our games. Bam." with a mic drop walkoff is even a starter. I mean any conference they have, regardless of intended topic, is going to be hours of "WHY DOESN'T IT HAVE AN OFF SWITCH?!!" and "I DON'T WANT YOU WATCHING ME IN THE SHOWER!!!", I'd cancel that shit too.
Except this is with the press... Who really haven't been saying too many negative things about it. It's not some forum.
Personally I'd be happy if what Microsoft presents is reasonably comprehensive and consistent rather than this ever-mutating mystery they've handed us.
Counterpoint: So much of the 'x-factor' of their new console is tied up in things that rely upon ironclad contracts with TV companies and studios. I think we can excuse them some delays and last-minute changes if things aren't yet set in stone, especially if they end up being legitimately awesome. Microsoft don't have a big first-party stable, but they do have endless pockets full of cash. If they want to buy their way to success, who am I to judge them if the final product is worthy? Ends justify the means, right?
Which television studio is responsible for determining extremely basic hardware functionality like "is it possible to turn the console on and off and navigate through basic features without using Kinect motion or voice commands", or "will the console function if the camera is obscured"? Nobody, but Microsoft still steadfastedly refuses to give anything resembling a straight answer to those types of questions. There's a point where you've gone beyond "it's a contract thing" and have just started deliberately obfuscating the nature of the device.
MS says something: "OH MY GOD THEY DIDN'T SAY THIS OTHER THING!"
MS says nothing: "OH MY GOD THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!"
People are going so far as to speculate "well, it's not REALLY a game console, I bet this is their way of getting out of the business". I just don't see how anything but "Here's our games. Bam." with a mic drop walkoff is even a starter. I mean any conference they have, regardless of intended topic, is going to be hours of "WHY DOESN'T IT HAVE AN OFF SWITCH?!!" and "I DON'T WANT YOU WATCHING ME IN THE SHOWER!!!", I'd cancel that shit too.
They could put a stop to those questions by having an honest back-and-forth conversation with journalists and actually answering them. What was happening before was they'd get a question, give a half-answer, get a followup question, and refuse to elaborate. Now they aren't taking questions at all. When is it going to be the right time to explain to consumers what they're buying? It wasn't when the rumors came out, it wasn't at the reveal, it's not at E3. Is it going to be after release? Never?
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
+5
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
On a far more important note, one Redditor asks "What percent of users actually pay real money in Zynga games?" You know—how many people were actually generating money for the company?
The answer is complicated: "Depends on the game, but on average I think it's about 5%. Maybe less." That sounds low, but: "The big games deal in Millions of DAU (Daily Average Users). If 3 million users pay an average of $0.20 you're getting $600k a day!"
They also cop to (and lament) the company's dark reputation for ripping off competitors—what was internally referred to as a "fast follow," a terrific little euphemism. Employees hated being forced to do this, but it became Zynga's bread and butter:
I think that early on it was blatant. Later it became well known practice at Zynga, but rather poor taste. Dream Heights/Tiny Tower was a big slap in the face. Sims Social/The Ville was the last straw. Towards the end of my time it was not so much that games were straight up ripped off, but key features would be. Such as the general method or menu flow that a game handles it's multiplayer. The idea being that if it works for that game, it would work for our game.
In general though, most of us knew what game was copying what. Bubble Safari was a copy of Bubble Witch Saga. The Ville was Sims Social. Hidden Chronicles was Gardens of Time. The company didn't call it out for what it was, but you knew because whatever project you were on most likely had similar pressures to match and beat a game on the market.
I'm going to have to remember that term.
Usually I have to take a fast follow after eating spicy food.
On a far more important note, one Redditor asks "What percent of users actually pay real money in Zynga games?" You know—how many people were actually generating money for the company?
The answer is complicated: "Depends on the game, but on average I think it's about 5%. Maybe less." That sounds low, but: "The big games deal in Millions of DAU (Daily Average Users). If 3 million users pay an average of $0.20 you're getting $600k a day!"
They also cop to (and lament) the company's dark reputation for ripping off competitors—what was internally referred to as a "fast follow," a terrific little euphemism. Employees hated being forced to do this, but it became Zynga's bread and butter:
I think that early on it was blatant. Later it became well known practice at Zynga, but rather poor taste. Dream Heights/Tiny Tower was a big slap in the face. Sims Social/The Ville was the last straw. Towards the end of my time it was not so much that games were straight up ripped off, but key features would be. Such as the general method or menu flow that a game handles it's multiplayer. The idea being that if it works for that game, it would work for our game.
In general though, most of us knew what game was copying what. Bubble Safari was a copy of Bubble Witch Saga. The Ville was Sims Social. Hidden Chronicles was Gardens of Time. The company didn't call it out for what it was, but you knew because whatever project you were on most likely had similar pressures to match and beat a game on the market.
I'm going to have to remember that term.
Usually I have to take a fast follow after eating spicy food.
Instead of crunch they call it, "A mighty push!"
Ok. I can say this without getting in trouble. At Zynga the term would more likely be 'doubling down'.
God I am never gonna be able to hear that in a meeting again without giggling.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
+1
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited June 2013
Honestly, as someone who doesn't really have a hate-boner for Microsoft at the moment and has more or less been avoiding the internet rumormill.
I would just like for them to clarify what they've been saying. Hell, they've been extremely unclear on a lot of key selling points and have even backpedaled about stuff they have said multiple times.
I'm getting more curious about the WiiU pricing/SKU shifts. Supposedly changes in the currency market alone give them room for a $70 price cut and still maintain margins. That fluctuates obviously, but I don't think it's unreasonable to target a $75 price drop as tough as its been to move units.
Then you add that with dropping he basic SKU. I was initially expecting them to just cut it in at the $300 existing slot, but they have to know that will have no effect on the terrible sales.
I'm starting to feel a SKU consolidation, price drop ($275 if they're worried about maintaining per unit margins, $250 if they sacrifice in the short term to move units) and maybe more options on the pack in title since Nintendoland isn't proving to be a draw at all.
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
Posts
Even then, shouldn't the lesson be 'Get better at talking about sensitive things' rather than 'We're just not gonna talk about it'?
Are they at least replacing it with something?
John Walker wrote a couple months ago at RPS about how the video game industry is plagued with this sort of behavior. That when a company stops addressing something, even when asked, it eventually goes away within the press, and this is a bad thing because it's a form of letting companies get away with distasteful things. At the time he wrote it, he was addressing Electronic Arts. It's possible that MS is going to be the next example of this.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I like how SMT fell 84% week on week but it's still third place. Hot diggity damn.
And they will leave something ambiguous, because they're gutless PR suits and what they have to confer is wildly unpopular.
It's an "out of sight, out of mind" thing. When you give nothing to the press, the press has nothing to report on. And in the interest of having to print things, they move on, and eventually stop prodding the situation. It is 100% control. It's a little more exasperated in the UK because of the laws regarding libel / slander (the hands of the press are pretty tied up there), but it hits NA too.
Though this pretty much guarantees all the articles will read "okay, Microsoft told us this, this and this, but they STILL haven't clarified on this and this, which are the same questions we asked when they wouldn't clarify the first time around, etc."
In other words this will annoy almost every journalist covering this into asking some VERY skeptical questions in the article, which will remind readers just how baffling the situation is. Which is kinda the opposite of good PR.
Worked for EA.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/22/the-power-of-silence-why-the-simcity-story-went-away/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
...now I'm depressed.
Then again, EA never had to do a big re-announcement for SimCity. Microsoft pretty much has to talk about the Xbone again, which will reiterate the questions everyone raised.
I think we need some more 'wait and see' attitudes right now. No need to jump the gun on every little detail. Let's allow Microsoft to fail in their own time.
By the way, what are the odds that Microsoft is changing their E3 presentation and it's changes that would warrant a hail of questions from the press but they want to avoid that? Guess we'll find out in a week right?
Usually I have to take a fast follow after eating spicy food.
They may be right about the second option in the mainstream press. They're dead wrong about both among enthusiasts, who unfortunately are going to be the early adopters and set the initial narrative.
When you refuse to comment on rumors, I can see how that's maybe a viable way to control a message. But not commenting on their own damn event? That's not controlling the message, that's not HAVING a message.
Microsoft's "message" right now is this: "There is literally nothing we could possibly say in plain English that would make our product sound appealing. We're hoping that if we say nothing at all, sheer ignorance will lead to people believing every word of our commercials and give us money out of blind optimism." Their message is that they think their product is objectively bad and they think only uninformed consumers will buy it. If they have a better message than that, they need to start talking. Actually talking, not just running promotional material. They're doing the exact opposite, and that inspires the exact opposite of confidence in an informed consumer. It worked for EA because you can make a profit by selling a couple million units of a game in the first couple of days before word of mouth catches up with you. You cannot make a profit on an entire console division off of week one sales alone, so what's the point of being silent?
EDIT: Editing on a phone is hard.
I think they're hoping to throw down a big list of games, and hope that consumers will buy the console because of those games, sight unseen.
We need more datapoints, but according to the few we have, it's working. Even without games at the moment.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/03/asda-xbox-one-is-our-fastest-selling-pre-order-console-3826800/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/xbox-one-breaks-pre-order-records-at-blockbuster/0116237
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
MS says nothing: "OH MY GOD THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!"
People are going so far as to speculate "well, it's not REALLY a game console, I bet this is their way of getting out of the business". I just don't see how anything but "Here's our games. Bam." with a mic drop walkoff is even a starter. I mean any conference they have, regardless of intended topic, is going to be hours of "WHY DOESN'T IT HAVE AN OFF SWITCH?!!" and "I DON'T WANT YOU WATCHING ME IN THE SHOWER!!!", I'd cancel that shit too.
Your sig picture really makes that hit home.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
That could be like twelve. I don't know why Microsoft doesn't want to answer questions but I hope it goes poorly for them. Having no 'front' in this age should be viewed as a slap in the face to consumers who just want information.
So, as someone who works at the company in question, I obviously can't really comment publicly because it would probably get me in trouble if I went around doing that.
But I can suggest people read that Reddit if they are at all curious about what the company is like.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Except this is with the press... Who really haven't been saying too many negative things about it. It's not some forum.
They could put a stop to those questions by having an honest back-and-forth conversation with journalists and actually answering them. What was happening before was they'd get a question, give a half-answer, get a followup question, and refuse to elaborate. Now they aren't taking questions at all. When is it going to be the right time to explain to consumers what they're buying? It wasn't when the rumors came out, it wasn't at the reveal, it's not at E3. Is it going to be after release? Never?
Ok. I can say this without getting in trouble. At Zynga the term would more likely be 'doubling down'.
God I am never gonna be able to hear that in a meeting again without giggling.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I would just like for them to clarify what they've been saying. Hell, they've been extremely unclear on a lot of key selling points and have even backpedaled about stuff they have said multiple times.
Little finality is all I'm asking for really.
Then you add that with dropping he basic SKU. I was initially expecting them to just cut it in at the $300 existing slot, but they have to know that will have no effect on the terrible sales.
I'm starting to feel a SKU consolidation, price drop ($275 if they're worried about maintaining per unit margins, $250 if they sacrifice in the short term to move units) and maybe more options on the pack in title since Nintendoland isn't proving to be a draw at all.
Shame, really, since I was kind of hyped for the idea.