Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

Microsoft nearly canceled its Xbox Adaptive Controller

Microsoft employees decided to rebel and make it happen anyway.

www.theverge.com

Microsoft came close to never launching its Xbox Adaptive Controller. In an interview with The Verge, Robin Seiler, Microsoft’s corporate vice president of Windows and devices, revealed just how close the accessibility-focused Xbox controller came to not shipping.

“There was a point in time when the Xbox controller that was designed for accessibility was on the cut list,” recounts Seiler. Microsoft was managing budgets, and it was about to be unfunded and never released. “Across teams, Xbox and Surface, we said, ‘No this is actually important for the world. This isn’t about revenue or brand positioning; it’s just important for people to be able to play games if they want to,’” says Seiler.

Since Bryce Johnson first invented the Accessibility Controller at Microsoft, the company’s stance on accessibility has changed. Now, accessibility is also a big focus for Surface and Microsoft as a whole. “It turns out if you focus on accessibility, you often make a product that’s better for everyone,” says Ralf Groene, head of Windows and devices research and design, in an interview with The Verge. Microsoft has created an accessibility tech lab where it prototypes hardware designed to improve accessibility.

“It’s a huge topic for us to be inclusive,” says Groene. “Microsoft is not a niche brand. We have a large customer base, and the more we can democratize computing, the better we are. Making products not only beautiful but beautifully usable.”

 

[adamsapple]

Good thing they didn't.

It's definitely made a lot of people happy that it exists.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

Good they kept it and changed how they think about it. The more people that can play, the more money you make.

 

[IFireflyl]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

To me this essentially reads as Microsoft saying, "We developed this controller for people with disabilities so they could have a better enjoyment with the video games that we all love. However, when it started to look like it would affect our bottom dollar we almost told the people looking forward to this to piss off, because that's our money, you know? But when our employees called us out for being the greedy bastards that we are, we begrudgingly kept this in the budget. Aren't we great?"

I remember them announcing this and thinking that it was an awesome idea. I'm glad they released this controller, but the fact that this trillion-dollar company almost cancelled it due to budget concerns is ridiculous. I could understand a smaller company wanting to develop something to help the less fortunate, but then having to cancel their project because they simply couldn't afford it. Microsoft hasn't been in that position for a long time, though. When they came up with the idea and decided to move forward with it that should have been that.

Maybe I'm the only one reading it this way, but this kind of a story makes Microsoft look worse in my eyes, not better. I'm glad employees in the company took a stand, but this just goes to show that corporations are not our friends. And lest anyone tries to twist my words and accuse me of console warring, that same claim applies to Nintendo, Sony, and virtually every other for-profit corporation. Heck, there are a lot of nonprofits/not-for-profits this applies to as well.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

To me this essentially reads as Microsoft saying, "We developed this controller for people with disabilities so they could have a better enjoyment with the video games that we all love. However, when it started to look like it would affect our bottom dollar we almost told the people looking forward to this to piss off, because that's our money, you know? But when our employees called us out for being the greedy bastards that we are, we begrudgingly kept this in the budget. Aren't we great?"

I remember them announcing this and thinking that it was an awesome idea. I'm glad they released this controller, but the fact that this trillion-dollar company almost cancelled it due to budget concerns is ridiculous. I could understand a smaller company wanting to develop something to help the less fortunate, but then having to cancel their project because they simply couldn't afford it. Microsoft hasn't been in that position for a long time, though. When they came up with the idea and decided to move forward with it that should have been that.

Maybe I'm the only one reading it this way, but this kind of a story makes Microsoft look worse in my eyes, not better.

It's called confirmation bias

 

[IFireflyl]

It's called confirmation bias

I sold my PS5 and kept my Xbox Series X, but I'm biased against Microsoft? Why do you people always want to turn every dissenting opinion into console warring?

 

[MarkMe2525]

I sold my PS5 and kept my Xbox Series X, but I'm biased against Microsoft? Why do you people always want to turn every dissenting opinion into console warring?

?? It was a smart ass quip. Breath, it's not that serious.

 

[nush]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

Kind of I guess. Every product goes through evaluation before it's shipped and so they are using a PR angle here but the bottom line is the product made sense when the spotlight was shined on it.

 

[Dr.brain64]

"Microsoft was managing budgets, and it was about to be unfunded and never released"

You know, it feels like xbox has released so few games in a span of 10 years. Hmmmm.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

To me this essentially reads as Microsoft saying, "We developed this controller for people with disabilities so they could have a better enjoyment with the video games that we all love. However, when it started to look like it would affect our bottom dollar we almost told the people looking forward to this to piss off, because that's our money, you know? But when our employees called us out for being the greedy bastards that we are, we begrudgingly kept this in the budget. Aren't we great?"

I remember them announcing this and thinking that it was an awesome idea. I'm glad they released this controller, but the fact that this trillion-dollar company almost cancelled it due to budget concerns is ridiculous

I think you're going off the deep end here. Microsoft are still the only company to offer a controller of this type as far as I know. If you like, call out companies who could afford the money to design, produce and market what I assume is quite a niche product that probably isn't a money maker, but don't, rather than the company who did.

I think you probably need to think about corporate structure and how department budgets work. We've just seen Microsoft lay off some staff in an efficiency drive. The large corporation I used to work for did this every year. Every year departments would be dissolved, consolidated or moved to work on different projects. All of those things meant redundancies. It's how it is and the people making the decisions might not even be in the same time zone as you, let alone the same building.

The guys who originally put forward making this controller will have been on payroll, and the designers, costs for prototyping, marketing packaging design and every other stage also have a cost and that will come out of a specific department budget.

For all we know, that department may have had a few under performing products or be deemed to be expensive, or whatever else.

If you're the manager of that department, choosing to develop a product that won't make money, or even lose money, could mean that you and the people on your team all get made redundant when the accountants you will never meet look at the profit and loss figures for each department.

That someone argued and said "look, this won't make money, but it's important, I think we should do it" is a pretty positive message to me.

 

[anthony2690]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

To me this essentially reads as Microsoft saying, "We developed this controller for people with disabilities so they could have a better enjoyment with the video games that we all love. However, when it started to look like it would affect our bottom dollar we almost told the people looking forward to this to piss off, because that's our money, you know? But when our employees called us out for being the greedy bastards that we are, we begrudgingly kept this in the budget. Aren't we great?"

I remember them announcing this and thinking that it was an awesome idea. I'm glad they released this controller, but the fact that this trillion-dollar company almost cancelled it due to budget concerns is ridiculous. I could understand a smaller company wanting to develop something to help the less fortunate, but then having to cancel their project because they simply couldn't afford it. Microsoft hasn't been in that position for a long time, though. When they came up with the idea and decided to move forward with it that should have been that.

Maybe I'm the only one reading it this way, but this kind of a story makes Microsoft look worse in my eyes, not better. I'm glad employees in the company took a stand, but this just goes to show that corporations are not our friends. And lest anyone tries to twist my words and accuse me of console warring, that same claim applies to Nintendo, Sony, and virtually every other for-profit corporation. Heck, there are a lot of nonprofits/not-for-profits this applies to as well.

Not really, I know Satya Nadella had a child with cerebral palsy that loved video games prior to passing away.

So I can not imagine this decision was coming from him.

I imagine it is someone from finance who was looking to save money for Microsoft and the higher ups said nope.

& I think it is great they put out a product for a smaller audience of gamers that potentially won't make them any money, who else is doing it?

 

[IFireflyl]

I think you're going off the deep end here. Microsoft are still the only company to offer a controller of this type as far as I know. If you like, call out companies who could afford the money to design, produce and market what I assume is quite a niche product that probably isn't a money maker, but don't, rather than the company who did.

I think you probably need to think about corporate structure and how department budgets work. We've just seen Microsoft lay off some staff in an efficiency drive. The large corporation I used to work for did this every year. Every year departments would be dissolved, consolidated or moved to work on different projects. All of those things meant redundancies. It's how it is and the people making the decisions might not even be in the same time zone as you, let alone the same building.

The guys who originally put forward making this controller will have been on payroll, and the designers, costs for prototyping, marketing packaging design and every other stage also have a cost and that will come out of a specific department budget.

For all we know, that department may have had a few under performing products or be deemed to be expensive, or whatever else.

If you're the manager of that department, choosing to develop a product that won't make money, or even lose money, could mean that you and the people on your team all get made redundant when the accountants you will never meet look at the profit and loss figures for each department.

That someone argued and said "look, this won't make money, but it's important, I think we should do it" is a pretty positive message to me.

Not really, I know Satya Nadella had a child with cerebral palsy that loved video games prior to passing away.

So I can not imagine this decision was coming from him.

I imagine it is someone from finance who was looking to save money for Microsoft and the higher ups said nope.

& I think it is great they put out a product for a smaller audience of gamers that potentially won't make them any money, who else is doing it?

I used to be a glass-half-full kind of guy. I guess I have became more cynical with age. Great points from the both of you.

 

[Negotiator101]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

To me this essentially reads as Microsoft saying, "We developed this controller for people with disabilities so they could have a better enjoyment with the video games that we all love. However, when it started to look like it would affect our bottom dollar we almost told the people looking forward to this to piss off, because that's our money, you know? But when our employees called us out for being the greedy bastards that we are, we begrudgingly kept this in the budget. Aren't we great?"

I remember them announcing this and thinking that it was an awesome idea. I'm glad they released this controller, but the fact that this trillion-dollar company almost cancelled it due to budget concerns is ridiculous. I could understand a smaller company wanting to develop something to help the less fortunate, but then having to cancel their project because they simply couldn't afford it. Microsoft hasn't been in that position for a long time, though. When they came up with the idea and decided to move forward with it that should have been that.

Maybe I'm the only one reading it this way, but this kind of a story makes Microsoft look worse in my eyes, not better. I'm glad employees in the company took a stand, but this just goes to show that corporations are not our friends. And lest anyone tries to twist my words and accuse me of console warring, that same claim applies to Nintendo, Sony, and virtually every other for-profit corporation. Heck, there are a lot of nonprofits/not-for-profits this applies to as well.

I love reading stuff like this because it shows that someone there really believed in this product and how it could literally change lives for people who game. Who ever gave Phil (or whomever decided to continue funding this product ) a kick up the arse should be commended.

 

[Valedix]

I would hope Sony and Nintendo or even Valve make something similar.

 

[Ozriel]

Is it just me, or does this article actually paint Microsoft in a bad light? When I read this it's like Microsoft is patting themselves on the back for not being assholes.

To me this essentially reads as Microsoft saying, "We developed this controller for people with disabilities so they could have a better enjoyment with the video games that we all love. However, when it started to look like it would affect our bottom dollar we almost told the people looking forward to this to piss off, because that's our money, you know? But when our employees called us out for being the greedy bastards that we are, we begrudgingly kept this in the budget. Aren't we great?"

I remember them announcing this and thinking that it was an awesome idea. I'm glad they released this controller, but the fact that this trillion-dollar company almost cancelled it due to budget concerns is ridiculous. I could understand a smaller company wanting to develop something to help the less fortunate, but then having to cancel their project because they simply couldn't afford it. Microsoft hasn't been in that position for a long time, though. When they came up with the idea and decided to move forward with it that should have been that.

Maybe I'm the only one reading it this way, but this kind of a story makes Microsoft look worse in my eyes, not better. I'm glad employees in the company took a stand, but this just goes to show that corporations are not our friends. And lest anyone tries to twist my words and accuse me of console warring, that same claim applies to Nintendo, Sony, and virtually every other for-profit corporation. Heck, there are a lot of nonprofits/not-for-profits this applies to as well.

You’re reading it in a weird way.
It’s been a constant - and understandable - refrain that they’ve committed millions into this without expecting any profits. Nothing surprising that cost cutters would have cast an eye on it. And there’s no real source for your dramatization of the whole thing like “evil leaders tried to cut it but brave employees stood up at the last minute and ensured they went ahead”

Sorry, but that’s not how enterprise works. For the product to have been released, it had to have bad significant leadership support. the ‘employees called us out’ framing you’re pushing is not feasible.

Let’s not spin a story about internal challenge to say you’re somehow less impressed about what’s perhaps the most meaningful contribution to accessibility in gaming for a while.

 

[spons]

So someone had to tell the higher-ups that nobody else was doing this and that meant more money from an otherwise marginalized group?
I might be jaded but there is no way this is done from the good of their hearts, outside of a few people at Xbox and the original designer maybe.

 

[The_Mike]

Has anyone on Gaf actually tried it?

 

[SportsFan581]

It isn't a mass market type thing, which probably caused the issues internally. Glad they moved forward with it, users that need it have likely had a lot of experiences they wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[DarkMage619]

So someone had to tell the higher-ups that nobody else was doing this and that meant more money from an otherwise marginalized group?
I might be jaded but there is no way this is done from the good of their hearts, outside of a few people at Xbox and the original designer maybe.

Things in business are rarely done out of the good in someone's heart. The fact that it happened and it helps people who otherwise would not be able to game at all is the good we should care about. This is especially true since I have not heard of any other gaming companies creating devices like this at all.

 

[Ozriel]

You know, it feels like xbox has released so few games in a span of 10 years. Hmmmm.

What does this have to do with the topic of discussion?

So someone had to tell the higher-ups that nobody else was doing this and that meant more money from an otherwise marginalized group?
I might be jaded but there is no way this is done from the good of their hearts, outside of a few people at Xbox and the original designer maybe.

Someone had to justify why they were spending money with no expected profit, yes.

They certainly aren’t going to recoup investment into this, and they’ve made all the work that went into it available for anyone.

Also, they’ve long since given their blessings for this to be used on other console platforms (there’s people out there using it on Switch and PS4) so it isn’t intended to be a console hardware seller. Not to mention that as SportsFan581 says, it’s not going to be a mass market thing.