Google Kills Nest Secure, Can't Be Bothered To Explain Support Roadmap
Furnished content.
Three years ago, Google jumped into the home security market. After a troubled development cycle it launched Nest Secure, a $500 home security system that competes with the likes of Abode and Simplisafe. But things didn't go quite as planned. Last year, the company took some deserved heat for failing to mention the system's "Nest Guard" keypad control base included a hidden microphone, creating ample paranoia among owners. Google also took heat for failing to really deploy updates at the same pace that other Nest products had seen, and for making changes that locked you into the Google ecosystem at the cost of interoperability.Last week the company quietly told Android Police it would be killing the Nest Secure completely. The company didn't really explain why, or what happens next, only to state that the product will still work. For now. Of course when Ars Technica pressed the company as to how long existing users can expect their expensive security service to get support, the company apparently couldn't be bothered to answer:"We tried asking Google about all this a few days ago when we got a tip that the Nest Secure was listed as "no longer available" (thanks, Bill!) but the company wouldn't answer. Included in our email were questions about what the future looks like for existing Nest Secure users, like if they'll ever be able to buy more sensors or replacement sensors for their existing setups (these have been out of stock for a while now) or how much longer the Nest Secure will be supported for. Even if Google doesn't immediately turn off the software support, a system with no replacement parts can only die a slow death." So not just murky answers, but no answers at all.Hyping products and entire ecosystems, then destroying them with a casual wave without transparent communications isn't a great way to develop consumer trust. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's part and parcel for a hardware industry that routinely bricks or stops supporting hardware and ecosystems you just got done shelling out hundreds to thousands of dollars for. That's especially true in home automation and security, where users have to shell out an arm and a leg for various household sensors that in many instances won't work with any other systems due to companies that view interoperability as a threat to walled gardens.In this case, users have invested upwards of thousands of dollars for a home security ecosystem with an uncertain support future. And despite the fact that Google may be cooking up a new system with its partners at ADT, when it inevitably comes time to replace these expensive systems, or invest hundreds to thousands of dollars in a new ecosystem (be it Stadia game streaming or anything else), the message being sent is that you can't trust Google to stick around and truly support the ecosystems their marketing department just got done claiming you couldn't live without.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 03-Nov-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Bethesda, Microsoft Make Conflicting Statements About Game Exclusivity After Studio Purchase
Furnished content.
Several weeks ago, Microsoft bought Zenimax Media, the parent organization of Bethesda Softworks for over $7 billion. Bethesda is a celebrated studio best known for its Fallout and Elder Scrolls titles. Both series have long histories of being published across a wide range of gaming platforms, including the PC, PlayStation, and Xbox markets. Almost immediately after the deal, however, many gamers openly worried that Microsoft would warehouse the properties to either the PC or Xbox markets exclusively.The worry didn't cease when Kotaku interviewed Xbox chief Phil Spencer about the implications of the deal and Spencer's remarks were decidedly noncommittal.“Is it possible to recoup a $7.5 billion investment if you don’t sell Elder Scrolls VI on the PlayStation?” I asked.“Yes,” Spencer quickly replied.Then he paused.“I don’t want to be flip about that,” he added. “This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that. Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: ‘How do we keep other players from playing these games?’ We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games. But I’ll also say in the model—I’m just answering directly the question that you had—when I think about where people are going to be playing and the number of devices that we had, and we have xCloud and PC and Game Pass and our console base, I don’t have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us. Whatever that means.” Whatever that means. Well, what it means is that there has been enough conversation of how Bethesda franchises will be distributed and sold that Spencer felt confident saying that those games didn't need to be multi-platform in order for the deal to still be profitable. Couching this all in the fact that the specific language of the acquisition didn't mention exclusivity is all fine and good, but Spencer had this answer ready to go. That likely means that there has been at least some discussion about taking those games exclusive to the Xbox, or Microsoft's forthcoming game-streaming services. Coupled with a growing trend in exclusivity both in the console and PC gaming spaces, this wasn't exactly encouraging for those that think exclusivity deals are a terrible idea and terrible for the industry.Todd Howard, one of the creative leads at Bethesda, was at least a bit more forceful in his remarks to Ars Technica when asked if this was about to become a thing."I would agree that is hard to imagine" The Elder Scrolls VI restricted to Microsoft platforms, Howard said in response to a direct question on the matter.Elsewhere in the interview, Howard admits that the parties haven't fully discussed the details of multiplatform publishing as part of the purchase deal, which won't be finalized until next year. "We haven't gone through all of that, to be honest," he said. Howard also stressed Bethesda's autonomy to "[run] our games and [push] everything the way that we have," even as a Microsoft subsidiary. "We felt very strongly about their view of access; games for everybody that we can bring to anybody regardless of where they are, what devices they're playing on. We're very, very passionate about that, and at the end of the day we're convinced we'll make better products and get them to more people easily by being part of Xbox as opposed to being just a third party." But that's still not really a firm answer. Bethesda's vision can be whatever it wants, but its part of Microsoft now. If you're into reading industry tea leaves, it doesn't look like there are any serious plans by Microsoft for locking up these beloved franchises. But sans a commitment by the company to not do so, there is still much worry that access to them may go away for many.Why anyone would think that would push more people to buy an Xbox in significant numbers is an mystery.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 03-Nov-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|