Ricerocket
Member
I'm sure in actual practice, there are limitations... MS isn't paying for 300,000 servers to give every game dev free use of it.
Washington post: Investors want MS to kill Xbox
- Thread starter tipoo
- Start date
I'm sure in actual practice, there are limitations... MS isn't paying for 300,000 servers to give every game dev free use of it.
I gotta say, the cloud-to-butt browser extension is a lifesaver.
But, seriously, this is just some investor venting steam from his butt. Dropping Xbox now makes no sense, not when MS is so close to the endgame: getting the marketing data flowing from Kinect.
Garrett 2U
Member
Imperfected
Member
Basically. Their failure to install their CEO candidate of choice has taken some of the bark out of them, but they're likely to keep banging this drum for the foreseeable future - especially if there are any more highly-public downturns in X-Box's business.
That said, they were part of the power shift that pushed Ballmer out, so I wouldn't write them off as being inconsequential whiners. They may not have gotten the results they wanted, and certainly didn't do it entirely by themselves, but they are having a measurable impact on the corporate climate.
Killroyskbg
Member
I might be wrong on this but is not their azure data centers huge and only placed in like 8 countries and then there are only nodes to connect to the more remote areas countries? If it is true and they intend to use them that might not be ideal to say the least.
Sittning on phone at work so do not have the time to look it up.
Chobel
Member
Won't be enough, see Azure pricings by yourself. Also when there was no free dedicated servers, XBL money wasn't making Xbox Division that profitable, I don't think MS will throw XBL money to give devs free cloud services unless they can make profit. Unconditioned free cloud services won't give them profit.
So waste money from another division? That's not how big enterprises work. Investors are already not happy that xbox division isn't highly profitable, so I'm sure as hell they won't like wasting money from other divisions.
nvm thanks for the info.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
The way they treat game development (buying exclusivity, publishing for an independent studio [Insomniac, Double Helix, etc], not building first party up) makes it seem like they can fold up shop at anytime with minimal assets and staff to sell off. Even the studios they do have or created are shackled to franchises, and some have bled staff (Rare).
Garrett 2U
Member
you're looking at an article from June. a lot has changed since June with Xbox haha.
edit: oops, I see your edit, no problem haha
you know that they don't pay Azure prices for their own services, right?
as long as they have a business plan that covers the cost, they can manage it.
that's kinda a benefit of Microsoft owning a huge cloud infrastructure.
plus, think about it, tons of opportunity cost with that offer.
it is a very tempting offer to devs, gets them to work with azure, maybe they'll use azure for their other platforms as well.
Recently (as in the last year), it's been good. Particularly the last quarter.
But even in the PS2 heydays, the margins were relatively low by tech industry standards. "Good tech industry venture" would probably qualify at 10%+ margins, and the Playstation isn't that. It's good by Sony standards, though.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I think I can see what you're saying. If I understand you right, you're basically saying you can't argue opportunity costs while at the moment they have a lot of cash sitting in the bank. Because Microsoft isn't spending their bank, it stands to reason axing the Xbox division would just lead to more money sitting in the bank.
But I'd also point out that there's also risk involved in the console market which needs to be involved in the equation. If Xbox is barely beating out what they would have made with bank interest when there was 80 million consoles on the market, what happens if Xbox One can't break 30 million? History shows that exact thing can easily happen to any console manufacturer at any generational shift. Do you really pick yourself back up and say "maybe next time we'll make a return to those meager profits of the 360 era"?
Depends on how they did it - IF they did as you say. Most likely they'd either make a graceful exit trying to minimize the sense they left their customers in the lurch or they'd do this in conjunction with some form of asset sell of.
Worst case they drop it like a stone and leave XB1 owners with a dead console but I think that's very unlikely: too damaging and too much press attention.
If you're interested in XB1 (or have one) there's likely little reason to worry: it's far from certain they will drop Xbox. There are reasons to - I've listed some myself earlier in the thread - but there's no rush and reason's not to as well and no sign they're actually going to do anything but continue to fight hard for the brand.
The primary thing an enthusiast MP gamer should be interested in is a QoS agreement, which XBL has never had and MS still hasn't even suggested that they'll implement such a thing even with dedicated servers. So the degree to which this actually pushes online gaming is highly debatable.
Really? uhh brb....
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
It's not the investors' job to have vision.
uncledonnie
Banned
I feel like these conversations never include the whole picture. There is a lot to the Xbox story outside of the devices division. All of the Live money and other related services for example. And Bing is deeply integrated throughout so much of the MS stack... it's hardly just about the ad revenue.
In any case though, it seems like the CEO selection along with Bill Gates' increased role make it fairly clear that nothing along these lines has any traction within the company.
In any case though, it seems like the CEO selection along with Bill Gates' increased role make it fairly clear that nothing along these lines has any traction within the company.
.....
I was about to make a full post but it seems Garrett 2U has cleared things up.
Marauder Shields
Member
Bing would be a massive loss. Great for watching vids.
At this point, quoting Penello is as reliable as posting ******** numbers.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Garrett 2U
Member
heh, well the same thing has been reiterated by plenty of microsoft guys, as well as in articles on their site, etc.
at this point, it's pretty clear that cloud compute is free to devs on xbox one
haha, I think everyone that owns a console wishes it could play every game
but alas =\
Part of me would LOVE it if Xbox went away, and all its games moved to the PS4, so that I could just buy a PS4 and have access to all of them. But I know that part of the reason the PS4 is so good right now is because Sony had Microsoft to compete with. So in the end it's just a foolish dream.
Not sure what your argument is here aside from being a smart ass.
Microsoft has made it clear they want to be in devices and services. Xbox is a crucial component of that given it includes just about all of the ones they have.
Doesn't seem too complicated to me. I'm fairly confident Microsoft's vision isn't as short term and bottom line as the investor's is.
Chobel
Member
Even if they own it, they won't waste Azure services unless they have to, and when they do they know exactly how much resources they will be using. And in this case they're not the ones using those cloud services, it's the devs, and unless they're putting some limitations, devs will waste resources as much as they like. Also business plan will have by definition some limitations to use those services.
Sure, but doesn't mean they have to give those services for free. R
Derekloffin
Member
All this insistence on getting rid of Xbox makes me more open to the belief there is in fact some messing around in the books to make it look more profitable than it truly is. A while back someone was claiming that they were making it look profitable by factoring in android licensing into that division which it has nothing to do with. Still, nothing to panic over just yet until they actually get to seriously tabling this idea.
Garrett 2U
Member
No they don't have to. And according to that TitanFall interview, maybe it wasn't free at one time.
But Microsoft has clearly stated multiple times that various cloud features (including compute) are free for devs on Xbone.
And so far we haven't heard otherwise from anyone, so I'm, personally, fairly convinced.
haha, I think everyone that owns a console wishes it could play every game
but alas =\
PC's will play everything if you're willing to wait and get a good enough rig.
IMO. There is no other systems out there that can replace the Xbox for me. Nothing.
Going through pages and reads that some wants the Xbox to fail is just measurable.
I mean I get that you some of you don't like it, And no one is forcing you to do. That's why you obviously have another choice to choose from. You see the irony here? Choice.
Ever thought about those who actually like it? Or the hatred just covers your wisdom?
choice is what the industry needs.
that is why you love whatever and some love whatever. If we are stucked with one than there is no competition.
As for me, If Xbox dies. Which I don't think it will do anytime soon, Then it's over for me as a gamer. I wouldn't consider any other alternatives cuz I have them all , Tried them all and knows where my heart is. With Xbox
Wut?
Rare is about 200 employees, with 2 locations now. Lionhead has multiple teams now. They most recently acquired Press Play and before that Twisted Pixel. They built up 343i, Team Dakota, Lift London, and Black Tusk. They opened up LA Studio for exclusive original programming and Big Park is working on interactive TV. They formed a Deep Tech team to work on apps. They got Valve's former Steam boss to head up the PC division. They just bought the Gears of War IP. They have game developments going on at Ruffian, Remedy, and PlayGround. They just signed multi-game, multi-year agreement with Undead Labs.
They have thousands of employees and billions of dollars behind Xbox. I don't think it would be easy to just close up shop.
They most certainly are building up first party, but as Spencer said they're taking a long-term approach by partnering with the right studios and attracting talent that wants to work there. I think it's smart to avoid another cultural clash like they did with Rare.
Chobel
Member
EDIT: I didn't see this was response to the bolded part in my post, my bad.
You mean Penello. Sorry but he isn't the best guy for info.
Because they're probably under NDA.
No, but gamers would benefit if MS left the industry and the Xbox division went to someone who actually gives a damn about games.
Oppo
Member
I do think it strange that Albert is referring to Azure as "dedicated servers". My understanding of cloud services is that they are the opposite of that; they are dynamically distributed server loads. Perhaps he's using it as shorthand for Dedicated Resources (or something) but that terminology is confusing.
It's already happened with the PS2. If you're willing to wait long enough EMU does catch up. I have a decent library of PS2 games and keeping my PS2 set up out is annoying. It's nicer to pop in a Ps2 game into my PC. My decentPS3 collection is waiting for good PC EMU.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Very unlikely with Nadella running the show.
Any suggestions for who that might be?
Oppo
Member
This is sort of a generous / nebulous description of things.
Rare is big, but their output lately is lacklustre. Same with Lionhead, who hadn't made anything but Fable games since 2008. PressPlay is focused on tablet, mobile and "TV games". Twisted Pixel is seemingly a one trick pony, as LocoCycle is a disaster, and their track record poor. 343i has made one Halo game. Team Dakota is some hazy division of who knows what working on Project Spark. Lift London, same haze (cloud focused, no shipping products, a year old). Black Tusk is MS Vancouver renamed. LA Studio - TV, has nothing to do with first party games. Big Park, same deal. Who cares about their ICE team. Who cares about their hires. Who cares about gears IP.
It's a nice impressive list you have there but it feels like a lot of window dressing to be honest.
I'm not going to go run around in circles about the quality of output or the strategy of the business in their investments - we won't get anywhere. I responded to a post which suggested MS doesn't have a lot invested in the Xbox brand and that it would be easy to close up shop. Clearly, they have a lot of invested.
Oppo
Member
And I would agree with that sentiment. I do find their first party to be weirdly thin but I agree with your original point.
It really depends on how the Xbox One pans out. If it becomes this unlikeable Kinect only media center that complains about not being connected to the internet then yes, kill it. Alternatively it could be a decent springboard for western developers, no? It's the only western developed console at the moment.
They've lost billions since they started the Xbox brand.
Randolph Freelander
Member
That's not a particularly strong argument for Microsoft staying in the business. What's good for the consumer doesn't really have much relevance here.