Yeah, those are some quotes I agree with as well. While I think the console business really needs 3 players, I have hard time seeing what the point is for MS to stay in the console business.
Washington post: Investors want MS to kill Xbox
- Thread starter tipoo
- Start date
Dion Blaster
Member
IF they were to pull out of the console business how would that work? Continuing to support the One and drop all plans for the next console? Stop first party development? Third party games would continue to come right?
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
I disagree completely, they have pushed it and continue to do so with Azure. Not commenting on Sony or getting involved in console wars.
Xbox Live Gold subscriber numbers can't be that good.
That is almost guaranteed money for nothing right there and that doesn't seem to float the investor boats or push Xbox into amazing profits.
Something is wrong in the Xbox division if they barely keep their head above water after all this time and with Gold subscriptions which may not be as rosy or wide consumer reaching as Microsoft would have us believe.
That is almost guaranteed money for nothing right there and that doesn't seem to float the investor boats or push Xbox into amazing profits.
Something is wrong in the Xbox division if they barely keep their head above water after all this time and with Gold subscriptions which may not be as rosy or wide consumer reaching as Microsoft would have us believe.
Captain Tuttle
Member
They would sell off the brand to someone, it's way too valuable. I don't really care who owns Xbox, just as long as they maintain a Western focus I'd be fine with it.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I don't really think it needs three players, I think two would be okay, but Nintendo is too ignorant and stubborn to be one of the two. They seem to prefer to think their competitors don't exist or consider themselves to be in a different market, so as far as I see it the only real "competitors" are Sony and Microsoft anyway.
I'd imagine they support the Xbox One through it's life, but not make a successor and once it dries up sell off their assets - IPs, studios, whatever.
Well if they don't want to screw over the current customer, they'll just drop out in the next cycle. They have already made the investments in R&D and other costs related to the Xbox. Or sell it to another party that's interested in continuing the business.
But can you at least explain how? You're apparently not commenting on Microsoft either.
Renting dedicated services with Azure is neat, but it's hardly "pushing online".
If anything, they are "pushing entertainment" as hard as they can.
cebri.one
Member
.8% is a lot actually.
Hey. Let's have Playstation and Nintendo killed off too!!!
We could have all the first party studios and third party studios go to PC development.
Imagine!
Mario, Uncharted, Forza, Halo, TLoU 2, GT7, Mario Kart...all on one system. Might as well shoot for the highest point.
Let's not stop at killing off one brand.
Sound good? I'm ok with that. All we would need is Steam Machines from Valve and we're set.
LOL
Captain Tuttle
Member
I'm not a professional but I don't think it's that simple. I believe there's different classes of stock and the influence one has depends on the type one owns (and the amount of course).
I'm not positive though, maybe a pro can chime in.
Edit: Clearly the guy representing the firm has voting shares, that .8% got him on the board
I disagree, while Nintendo swing and missed this gen, they did try something new. That's what competition is about all the players try something to one up the other. While not everything will be hit, but sometimes they will and that will move the industry as a whole.
I do agree with Nintendo being too stubborn and some ways ignorant, but they do have to resources to turn things around. If not this cycle, they will the next.
Investors can't be happy with that $100 million purchase. This article drives home the importance of XBL. As a customer, I hate the prospect of paying for a web browser. However, those fees add value to the company and enable Microsoft to use the moneyhat.
Investors could be tired of moneyhatting. However, a profit is a profit. Having said that, I'd love it if M$ invested in their own first party studios. Imagine a sports studio with major sports games. I want a Microsoft/Sony baseball faceoff where devs push each console to the limit. Gamers benefit from exclusive firsf party experiences on the platform. This keeps investors happy.
Investors could be tired of moneyhatting. However, a profit is a profit. Having said that, I'd love it if M$ invested in their own first party studios. Imagine a sports studio with major sports games. I want a Microsoft/Sony baseball faceoff where devs push each console to the limit. Gamers benefit from exclusive firsf party experiences on the platform. This keeps investors happy.
Specifics? "Azure" is basically just saying they use server farms. Everyone does that these days. What tangible benefits are they pushing for online gaming right out of the gate with the XBO, like they did right out of the gate with the 360?
lolwut, you were the one doing that in the first place with your hand-wringing over MS exiting being a "disaster for the gaming industry" and the supposed need to "keep Sony on their toes". You're far more concerned about competitive impact than I am. I've been playing games since long before either Sony or MS were any sort of influence on the gaming industry, so I really have no trouble envisioning the industry without one or both of them in it.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Dedicated servers for every game that wants them free on XB1 including the ability to use cloud compute.
How is that not pushing online gaming? It's a massive move, take your blinkers off.
Uncle Rupee
Banned
Except that the Xbox division is $2B in the red right now. How on earth is this division not only not profitable, but bleeding money like nobody's business?
Trying to introduce dedicated server standard instead of p2p crap is big if you care about MP gaming. Which a lot of people do care about.
Isn't this just a rehash of previous statements by ValueAct? From last year.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Chobel
Member
lol, you believe that bullshit. It's free with (many?) limitations
Captain Tuttle
Member
Haha, what?
Do you have a source?
but it's not free, and it's optional so MAYBE you'll see some on 1st party games, not as massive as you're saying.. at least not yet
Oh, next-gen....maybe. I think by then we'll see yet another piece of tech like the Fortaleza glasses which needs hardware processing and MS is still going to want control over the OS and interface to keep people in the garden, control what they are shown, gather consumer data for internal research, etc.
As for other devices, Microsoft already offers apps for other OS. They've been doing it for a very long time and it will only get easier as things move to the cloud. I have no doubt one day there will be an Xbox app that streams games, but I think that's really far off for experiences like Halo, Gears, Forza, etc. I don't think it will be ready within the next 10 years.
Entertainment is being had on mobile devices and in the living room, not just one or the other. Why give up the living room when it still makes billions of dollars and they have built up the tools, services, IP portfolio, brand, and talent to take it on? The answer is they need a living room experience and they also need mobile experiences that get more people into the ecosystem.
Chobel
Member
Nope, just common sense. Cloud services cost money and MS is not charity.
purpletentacle
Member
Don't know about you guys, but I'm looking forward to the Lenovo Xbox Two in 2018 
Teletraan1
Banned
...and mobile now too since virtual beggar became a thing.. Cant wait to look like a ghetto KOS-MOS cosplayer with a VR headset real soon since its the only thing that isn't currently doomed.
Netherscourge
Banned
Microsoft needs to focus on Windows. Period.
The PC is still a very rich platform, both for business and gaming.
Windows 8 is universally seen as a dud, so Windows 9 better get things back on track. And instead of trying to chase the whole mobile/touchscreen thing, they should focus HEAVILY back onto the desktop platform.
Make the mobile stuff EXTENSIONS of the desktop, not alternatives to it.
The PC is still a very rich platform, both for business and gaming.
Windows 8 is universally seen as a dud, so Windows 9 better get things back on track. And instead of trying to chase the whole mobile/touchscreen thing, they should focus HEAVILY back onto the desktop platform.
Make the mobile stuff EXTENSIONS of the desktop, not alternatives to it.
Ploid 3.0
Member
Is the livingroom as important as it was years ago? It's all about handheld devices now, more so phones.
Xbox does have an opportunity cost but how much is debateable. If they didn't have it or get rid of it they could
1) Put the billions into the bank and collect tens of millions in interest.
2) Give the money back to the shareholders who can put it into the bank or invest it elsewhere. This would mean job cuts and a smaller company that's more profitable meaning better stock market performance.
3) Invest elsewhere themselves. Redeploy resources to more profitable parts of the business(but if they're profitable there might be diminishing returns for doing that)
I don't think it is the right time to make a decision. Xbone just launched and they're stuck with it for a few years(just killing it would increase the loss they take). The world is also changing so in a few years time they can see how things have progressed and make a decision then. Even if they don't choose to cut it, they might choose to take things in a different direction. I suppose they could look for a partner to try to spin off the hardware side and the brand to and then offer to continue providing Live and the OS.
1) Put the billions into the bank and collect tens of millions in interest.
2) Give the money back to the shareholders who can put it into the bank or invest it elsewhere. This would mean job cuts and a smaller company that's more profitable meaning better stock market performance.
3) Invest elsewhere themselves. Redeploy resources to more profitable parts of the business(but if they're profitable there might be diminishing returns for doing that)
I don't think it is the right time to make a decision. Xbone just launched and they're stuck with it for a few years(just killing it would increase the loss they take). The world is also changing so in a few years time they can see how things have progressed and make a decision then. Even if they don't choose to cut it, they might choose to take things in a different direction. I suppose they could look for a partner to try to spin off the hardware side and the brand to and then offer to continue providing Live and the OS.
Codeblew
Member
They have developed several OS's. iSeries, MVS, AIX, OS/2 and probably more.
I'd love this to happen, just for the backlash. GAF will be a truly glorious place.
The PC market has radically transformed in the past few years and could easily supplant the Xbox if Microsoft decides to bow out. The PC gaming environment is already living room ready and is getting better and more mass audience friendly every day.
I missed this bit of news. Was it actually playable?
It's not just about the living room. It's about the consumer market. I don't know why so many of you can't see it. They have video games, music, movies, Office, Outlook, SkyDrive (OneDrive now), tablets, mobile phones, consoles, et al. They have to play across all those elements because that's what their competitors are doing, they are fighting for getting people into an ecosystem where they get a cut of as many online transactions as possible.
It's so obvious!
For all we know a rather large percentage of the XBL Gold fee goes towards their cloud costs. Not to mention that their cloud servers are just a small part of their rather large, quite profitable, Azure business. Is it such a stretch to believe that MS might try to entice developers by providing them with free access to their cloud services?
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Cloud compute basically means simple AI assist calculations, which if the hardware itself were more powerful, wouldn't be needed. I've yet to hear anything from MS equivalent to PS Now or Sony's IPTV service, either, and I don't even think XBO has Twitch streaming enabled yet.
Yeah, they will push hard for online gaming I'm sure, but right now Sony seems to be more aggressive even on that front.
But they don't even give RESPAWN free access.
Big to who? The kind of userbase that was already willing to pay for p2p gaming behind a paywall without any sort of QoS agreement included?
Incidentally the funny thing about defending that MS stay in the console business based solely on their online services is that it doesn't actually present a defense for keeping the hardware platform itself. Which would be another potential exit strategy for MS from the console market if not necessarily the gaming market in general.
Future PhaZe
Member
axe any games with a significant development window, release the rest, keep XBL running for quite some time and then axe it close to the next generation
the effect it would have on the industry would be terrible though, we've seen what an unchecked Sony that's feelin itself too much looks like
boiled goose
good with gravy
so it is profitable considering operating costs... the question is, does R&D, overhead, and other costs also go into operating costs? Im genuinely curious if someone has a definitive answer.
Even if they don't care now, they'll learn to care when they actually experience it. The enthusiast MP gamer already cares about it.
But, even Respawn, who is making a exclusive game to Microsoft, has to pay so I'd like to see another developer talk about their games getting free access. Do you have any other sources than the PR talk?