Support NeoGAF

[Disaster Nebraska]

We don't have a historical precedence for this though. It hasn't been done before.

They have a theory and you have a conflicting theory. We'll see who is right in time.

Taking exclusives and making them multiplatform has been done before. Many, many times. That's why I think it's naive to be so hunky-dorey about this shift in focus.

It's not so much my theory versus their theory. It's a matter of 40 years of gaming history and Microsoft's own track record versus them saying it's a good thing because...ecosystem!

Cross-buy has been done before. It was done between PS3/PS4 in a few instances to give PS3 owners a stronger reason to go to PS4.

It was also done on Vita. As it became painfully clear that Vita was dead, Sony implemented cross-buy on a significant number of games in order to help bolster those sales.

In both of those cases, it was done to help prop up a platform with lagging sales. In neither of those cases did it bolster the sales of those platforms to any significant degree, as near as I can tell. In neither of those cases did it lead to more games being ported to those platforms (if anything, as Remote Play became more of a thing, we are seeing fewer cross-buy ports).

So, we do have historical precedent showing how losing exclusives is a bad thing for the platform that's losing them.

We do have historical precedent showing how Microsoft abandons platforms that aren't doing well, and in fact this is similar to methods they've used in the past.

We do have historical precedent for how cross-buy is used to prop up dying platforms.

What we do not have is any evidence that spreading games across hardware platforms is beneficial to the weaker of those hardware platforms.

 

[Zedox]

I think this thread is going so long cause just based off the name of the topic. Microsoft releasing exclusive games on PC right now is not great for all xbox owners cause not all are the same .

If you only have a Xbox one you can speculate that it will be great for you based off more investment in more games or it could hurt the Xbox brand .

If you have a PC and Xbox and now you see no reason to own a Xbox its not great for those owners .

Seems as simple as thread title change would of prevented all of the conflicting arguments lol

*sigh*

 

[rakkadakka]

So, we do have historical precedent showing how losing exclusives is a bad thing for the platform that's losing them.

So do we have citations for all this so we can see whether or not these historical examples apply to the present?

Because the thing about historical events is that they don't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Sydle]

Taking exclusives and making them multiplatform has been done before. Many, many times. That's why I think it's naive to be so hunky-dorey about this shift in focus.

It's not so much my theory versus their theory. It's a matter of 40 years of gaming history and Microsoft's own track record versus them saying it's a good thing because...ecosystem!

Cross-buy has been done before. It was done between PS3/PS4 in a few instances to give PS3 owners a stronger reason to go to PS4.

It was also done on Vita. As it became painfully clear that Vita was dead, Sony implemented cross-buy on a significant number of games in order to help bolster those sales.

In both of those cases, it was done to help prop up a platform with lagging sales. In neither of those cases did it bolster the sales of those platforms to any significant degree, as near as I can tell. In neither of those cases did it lead to more games being ported to those platforms (if anything, as Remote Play became more of a thing, we are seeing fewer cross-buy ports).

So, we do have historical precedent showing how losing exclusives is a bad thing for the platform that's losing them.

We do have historical precedent showing how Microsoft abandons platforms that aren't doing well, and in fact this is similar to methods they've used in the past.

We do have historical precedent for how cross-buy is used to prop up dying platforms.

What we do not have is any evidence that spreading games across hardware platforms is beneficial to the weaker of those hardware platforms.

Still not the same. We've never had it on a platform-wide level, it's never been a standard with all exclusives (and Phil just said he wants it to be a platform standard for all third-party releases too). We've also never had it where the platform as a whole has hundreds of millions of users.

 

[Trup1aya]

I think this thread is going so long cause just based off the name of the topic. Microsoft releasing exclusive games on PC right now is not great for all xbox owners cause not all are the same .

If you only have a Xbox one you can speculate that it will be great for you based off more investment in more games or it could hurt the Xbox brand .

If you have a PC and Xbox and now you see no reason to own a Xbox its not great for those owners .

Seems as simple as thread title change would of prevented all of the conflicting arguments lol

Maybe the thread should be renamed to "Microsoft releasing exclusives games on PC is good for everyone except the small minority of primarily PC gamers who bought the Xbox one for PURELY to play exclusives (they care nothing for console specific benefits, features and services), but well in advance of the worthwhile exclusives actually coming out, only to find out that they could have waited for a PC release, and realize that maybe they should have waited in the first place , because at this point, their Xbox was collecting dust anyway"

1) I think people in that situation are of a tiny minority of Xbox owners

2) If someone finds themselves in the situation, I have to question why they purchased the Xbox when they did in the first place. If you bought the Xbox before games came out that you wanted to play on Xbox, it shouldnt take this announcement to realize that you wasted your money.

I think we all are smart enough to agree that buying a console for a handful of exclusives that aren't even out yet is silly. Most people that buy consoles early on do so for more immediate satifaction. It's usually some combination of exclusives, where their friends play online, easy to travel with etc.

 

[wapplew]

We don't have a historical precedence for this though. It hasn't been done before.

They have a theory and you have a conflicting theory. We'll see who is right in time.

It's a stretch, but it's happened to the Vita when they lost exclusive to PS4.
A not so well perform platform, losing most exclusive for bigger Eco system with cross buy (first party mostly) and cross play.
-Titles reach bigger audience, hoping for better sales and a chance to sequal, still dead (bye Tearaway)
-Cross buy and cross play as incentive for more people buying into the Eco system, hope to help the not so well perform platform, still dead.
-Bigger audience better sale, more money to dev more new risky IP being made? Nope, first party given up making exclusive for poor Vita.

Not indentical but somewhat a historical precedence.

 

[eksy]

Yeah but it's not. Literally every Xbox One game that I own now or want to buy is also on PC now and I have a capable PC. Microsoft has made it clear that I wasted $500. Please tell me how buying an Xbox One was good for me because I feel like it was a total ripoff.

Except fro the xbox owner who have a gaming PC and bought the X1 for its exclusive.
If I were one I'd feel fooled.

A PC gamer that supported Microsoft by purchasing an Xbox One for it's exclusives (Ryse, Dead Rising 3, Forza, with the promise of Halo/Gears otw) gets assed-out because the Xbox One becomes redundant when PC version releases.

A PC gamer that never had any intention of supporting MS; never had any intention of buying and Xbox One rejoices because now they don't have to pay $300 to play such games, and are championing for more titles to be released similarly. (I get it -- I would probably feel the same)

I would love to hear how Phil Spencer and Aaron Greenberg would reconcile this dichotomy. Shaft the supporters in favor of those that never supported you otherwise.

In fact I know how they would answer: they would activate politician mode, deflect, and drone on about whatever little positives exist for PC-XB1 existence. Cross-saves, cross-play, etc. Worthless ---- that nobody would pay $300 for, the cost of a console.

Taking exclusives and making them multiplatform has been done before. Many, many times. That's why I think it's naive to be so hunky-dorey about this shift in focus.

It's not so much my theory versus their theory. It's a matter of 40 years of gaming history and Microsoft's own track record versus them saying it's a good thing because...ecosystem!

Cross-buy has been done before. It was done between PS3/PS4 in a few instances to give PS3 owners a stronger reason to go to PS4.

It was also done on Vita. As it became painfully clear that Vita was dead, Sony implemented cross-buy on a significant number of games in order to help bolster those sales.

In both of those cases, it was done to help prop up a platform with lagging sales. In neither of those cases did it bolster the sales of those platforms to any significant degree, as near as I can tell. In neither of those cases did it lead to more games being ported to those platforms (if anything, as Remote Play became more of a thing, we are seeing fewer cross-buy ports).

So, we do have historical precedent showing how losing exclusives is a bad thing for the platform that's losing them.

We do have historical precedent showing how Microsoft abandons platforms that aren't doing well, and in fact this is similar to methods they've used in the past.

We do have historical precedent for how cross-buy is used to prop up dying platforms.

What we do not have is any evidence that spreading games across hardware platforms is beneficial to the weaker of those hardware platforms.

 

[notaskwid]

These are two not so successful platforms though (windows store and xbox one).

 

[justsomeguy]

I think this thread is going so long cause just based off the name of the topic.

neogaf.gif

 

[Sydle]

It's a stretch, but it's happened to the Vita when they lost exclusive to PS4.
A not so well perform platform, losing most exclusive for bigger Eco system with cross buy (first party mostly) and cross play.
-Titles reach bigger audience, hoping for better sales and a chance to sequal, still dead (bye Tearaway)
-Cross buy and cross play as incentive for more people buying into the Eco system, hope to help the not so well perform platform, still dead.
-Bigger audience better sale, more money to dev more new risky IP being made? Nope, first party given up making exclusive for poor Vita.

Not indentical but somewhat a historical precedence.

You're talking about a handheld that had an anemic software library to begin with, poor development support, and, most importantly to the point, the flow of first-party software wasn't bi-directional. For example, you didn't have a choice to play Bloodborne on the Vita without a PS4.

It's not the same value prop at all.

 

[notaskwid]

You're talking about a handheld that had an anemic software library to begin with, poor development support, and, most importantly to the point, the flow of first-party software wasn't bi-directional. For example, you didn't have a choice to play Bloodborne on the Vita without a PS4.

What otherwise pc exclusives will you get from this on xbox? Age of Empires 4?

 

[Sydle]

What otherwise pc exclusives will you get from this on xbox? Age of Empires 4?

The point is Vita only lost games, gaining nothing in return as being part of the "eco-system." In other words, the PS4 got a lot of games that never made their way to the Vita. Consumers didn't have a choice of where to play those games, they had to get a PS4.

What will be interesting for Sony is how they use PS Now in the future. If they start releasing new games on it one day then all of a sudden they have a true play-anywhere ecosystem. Makes me think they aren't done with handhelds forever.

 

[Trup1aya]

A PC gamer that supported Microsoft by purchasing an Xbox One for it's exclusives (Ryse, Dead Rising 3, Forza, with the promise of Halo/Gears otw) gets assed-out because the Xbox One becomes redundant when PC version releases.

A PC gamer that never had any intention of supporting MS; never had any intention of buying and Xbox One rejoices because now they don't have to pay $300 to play such games, and are championing for more titles to be released similarly. (I get it -- I would probably feel the same)

I would love to hear how Phil Spencer and Aaron Greenberg would reconcile this dichotomy. Shaft the supporters in favor of those that never supported you otherwise.

In fact I know how they would answer: they would activate politician mode, deflect, and drone on about whatever little positives exist for PC-XB1 existence. Cross-saves, cross-play, etc. Worthless ---- that nobody would pay $300 for, the cost of a console.

All primarily PC gamers who purchase an Xbox specifically for Ryse, Dead Rising 3, and/or Forza please raise your hands.

Of the 6 of you with raised hands, how much did future exclusives way into your decision to buy an Xbox one?

For all of you who bought the Xbox one specifically for games that have not been released yet. Why did you buy it so early, If it was going to be such a long time before you'd use it?

There's no real dichotomy here. There may be a hand full of people who chose to spend hundreds of dollars to play a few mediocre exclusives (Forza is great though). But the truth is the vast majority of existing and potential new customers and benefit from this.

 

[Beerman462]

I think this thread is going so long cause just based off the name of the topic. Microsoft releasing exclusive games on PC right now is not great for all xbox owners cause not all are the same .

1. If you only have a Xbox one you can speculate that it will be great for you based off more investment in more games or it could hurt the Xbox brand .

2. If you have a PC and Xbox and now you see no reason to own a Xbox its not great for those owners .

Seems as simple as thread title change would of prevented all of the conflicting arguments lol

1. Microsoft isn't likely to abandon the Xbox. It still sells better than Windows phone. If they make money on the Windows store that just means more money/incentives for exclusives. As others have said. Microsoft can keep the Xbox as a low priced entry into their market place.

2. I've seen other people voice this sentiment and it's seems stupid to me. How is it not great for these people? Sell your Xbox and play everything on your PC or don't and play it on the Xbox like you would have if they never started porting to PC. This loss of "perceived" value is selfish. Look at Rise of the Tomb Raider. It's a great game on the Xbox and even better game on the PC, plus more people get to enjoy it.

I bought a PS4 last year. $400 for the system and $50 for PS+. The only game I wanted to play was Bloodborn. I played it, it was good, but I would have gotten more use out of a new GPU. If Sony announced tomorrow that they were releasing their exclusives on PC I wouldn't be able to sell it fast enough. I currently have a PS4, PS3, Xbox 360 and 2 capable PCs. I would sell all the consoles if exclusive games were available on PC.

 

[Swass]

I think where it hurts the Xbox brand is with someone considering whether to get a PS4 or an Xbox One. Their thinking may now be "I'm going to get a PS4 because it has exclusives and I'll grab Xbox games on PC when I get a stronger rig down the line."

I think NPD is going to be interesting to watch over the next 6 months to see if this announcement does indeed have an affect Xbox sales.

 

[notaskwid]

The point is Vita only lost games, gaining nothing in return as being part of the "eco-system." In other words, tñ
4 got a lot of games that never made their way to the Vita. Consumers didn't have a choice of where to play those games, they had to get a PS4.

Of course a Vita can't reasonably play PS4 games natively, nobody expects that.
It's still the most apt comparison to infer what might happen.

 

[petran79]

A PC gamer that supported Microsoft by purchasing an Xbox One for it's exclusives (Ryse, Dead Rising 3, Forza, with the promise of Halo/Gears otw) gets assed-out because the Xbox One becomes redundant when PC version releases.

A PC gamer that never had any intention of supporting MS; never had any intention of buying and Xbox One rejoices because now they don't have to pay $300 to play such games, and are championing for more titles to be released similarly. (I get it -- I would probably feel the same)

I would love to hear how Phil Spencer and Aaron Greenberg would reconcile this dichotomy. Shaft the supporters in favor of those that never supported you otherwise.

In fact I know how they would answer: they would activate politician mode, deflect, and drone on about whatever little positives exist for PC-XB1 existence. Cross-saves, cross-play, etc. Worthless ---- that nobody would pay $300 for, the cost of a console.

By using Windows 10 as a gaming platform you support Microsoft, whether you like it or not.
Also with XB1 you do not need to worry about game, hardware or OS crashes. Mostly...
A lot of XB players also have old peripherals that are incompatible with the console but work on PC. Why let those go to waste.
We're reached a point where the term of 'exclusive' seems far outdated and anti-profit. Even MGS5 appeared on PC. PS4 players did not bother. Only Nintendo benefits but they have their own approach.
Only some niche indie, JRPG and fighting games still cling to this model but no one bothers when they arrive on PC. In fact a lot of players rejoice.

 

[masq]

yep, we agree.
This is great all around for everyone.
=)

 

[Sydle]

Of course a Vita can't reasonably play PS4 games natively, nobody expects that.
It's still the most apt comparison to infer what might happen.

But that's the big difference in what MS is claiming to offer, is that the games they make for the Windows Store will be playable on both the PC and Xbox console.

Completely different.

 

[Poster#1]

I think where it hurts the Xbox brand is with someone considering whether to get a PS4 or an Xbox One. Their thinking may now be "I'm going to get a PS4 because it has exclusives and I'll grab Xbox games on PC when I get a stronger rig down the line."

I think NPD is going to be interesting to watch over the next 6 months to see if this announcement does indeed have an affect Xbox sales.

I mean they will still buy Xbox games on different MS platform.

Is this hard for people to understand?

 

[Hyperbole]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

 

[Shenmue]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

Wait you think 3rd parties will drop xbox? Um no that's not happening unless the xbox ceases to exist.

Everything I've heard as to how this is bad for xbox one owners still boils down to "we're losing exclusives!" What a selfish position to take. Do you people play games or exclusives? Does a game changing from "Xbox One exclusive" to "console exclusive" somehow make it less fun?

 

[Helznicht]

A PC gamer that supported Cross-saves, cross-play, etc. Worthless ---- that nobody would pay $300 for, the cost of a console.

Your Opinion, and you forgot the best one, Cross-Buy. As a PC gamer myself, if a majority of games had cross-buy and cross play on Xbox, I actually would buy one as a compliment to my PC gaming rig to get back some of that sweet local Multi/coop feel we seem to have lost this Generation. I mean hell, I built a 2nd $800 PC to get it.............

 

[Trup1aya]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

It doesn't give third parties a reason to shy away at all... Xbox one sells plenty of third party software... And the only people who are less likely to buy the console, are those who prefer PC anyway... These folks weren't going to buy a console version of a 3rd party title even IF Xbox drew them in with exclusives.

 

[Beerman462]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

The Xbox One is still selling well and as far as anyone knows still selling faster than the Xbox 360 was when it was released. If 3rd party developers are already making the game for PC and PS4 an Xbox One port will be a no brainer.

It doesn't give third parties a reason to shy away at all... Xbox one sells plenty of third party software... And the only people who are less likely to buy the console, are those who prefer PC anyway... These folks weren't going to buy a console version of a 3rd party title even IF Xbox drew them in with exclusives.

Good point.

 

[RedSparrows]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

You're assuming that a publisher would chose to put something on PC and not Xbox. MS's hope is that in putting something 'on Xbox', it's PC and console at the same time.

 

[jroc74]

I mean they will still buy Xbox games on different MS platform.

Is this hard for people to understand?

Because I assume that post and one's similar are talking about Xbox one...console...sales.

Game sales. Yea it could help. Xbox One console sales? Thats what I assume many are wondering. And what some of us are talking about.

 

[Swass]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

Good point, and when you lock someone into a platform like the Xbox with an exclusive they had enough interest in to buy a console specifically for.. now they want to explore more games to use on that $300 investment.. so they might be looking at exclusives that maybe they had little interest in or didn't know about. This will no longer be the case.. just play Recore on PC and move along.

 

[RedSparrows]

Good point, and when you lock someone into a platform like the Xbox with an exclusive they had enough interest in to buy a console specifically for.. well now they want to explore more games to use on that $300 investment.. so now they might be looking at exclusives that maybe they had little interest in or didn't know about. This will no longer be the case.. just play Recore on PC and move along.

Aye. There will be some loss at the edges, as evidenced by certain people in this thread.

But I suspect the gamble is that these will be minimal, in favour of far more people buying MS titles, and titles via MS portals.

 

[jroc74]

Good point, and when you lock someone into a platform like the Xbox with an exclusive they had enough interest in to buy a console specifically for.. well now they want to explore more games to use on that $300 investment.. so now they might be looking at exclusives that maybe they had little interest in or didn't know about. This will no longer be the case.. just play Recore on PC and move along.

And investing in a PC to play XBO games means you get access to XBO games and PC exclusives.

To me that doesnt look too good for XBO console sales. And makes gaming on PC alot more attractive. IMO....something like Steam Machines will be an X factor in all this if it can run MS/XBO/Windows games.

 

[Beerman462]

Because I assume that post and one's similar are talking about Xbox one...console...sales.

Game sales. Yea it could help. Xbox One console sales? Thats what I assume many are wondering. And what some of us are talking about.

Xbox One and presumably it's successor, will pretty much be entry level PCs. Microsoft hasn't won any hardware battle ever. OG Xbox was destroyed by PS2. Xbox 360 was beat by Wii and I think PS3 by this point. Windows phone is a failure, Surface is great, but still gets beat sales wise by Apple. Microsoft don't care, because they are selling software. Xbox consoles aren't going anywhere, they might change what they are, but they will still be there.

 

[Trup1aya]

Good point, and when you lock someone into a platform like the Xbox with an exclusive they had enough interest in to buy a console specifically for.. well now they want to explore more games to use on that $300 investment.. so now they might be looking at exclusives that maybe they had little interest in or didn't know about. This will no longer be the case.. just play Recore on PC and move along.

How is being 'Locked in' for one game in hopes for other future exclusives good for gamers?

How is a customer having $300 extra bucks to spend on games bad for MS? They just need to put $300 worth of games to catch that consumers interest onto their PC platform.

And investing in a PC to play XBO games means you get access to XBO games and PC exclusives.

To me that doesnt look too good for XBO console sales. And makes gaming on PC alot more attractive. IMO....something like Steam Machines will be an X factor in all this.

The point is, that they no longer NEED to sell you the hardware in order to sell you the software. They get to jump right to the end goal. That's a win for both sides. That hardware sale becomes less important in the big scheme.

Folks who want to play console still will... Those who'd rather not can still play the games.

 

[RedSparrows]

And investing in a PC to play XBO games means you get access to XBO games and PC exclusives.

To me that doesnt look too good for XBO console sales. And makes gaming on PC alot more attractive.

As has been postulated a trillion times in this thread, the suspicion is that any gamer who looks at it likes this still buys into MS stuff, albeit not via a console, whilst the gamers who don't care about PC (90% of my Live chums, anecdotally) will still play on console.

Whether it works out remains to be seen, but your angle is not exclusive.

 

[gamechanger87]

Because I assume that post and one's similar are talking about Xbox one...console...sales.

Game sales. Yea it could help. Xbox One console sales? Thats what I assume many are wondering. And what some of us are talking about.

You do realize that Sony and MS don't make money on the HW right? They are likely pricing slightly above cost. They make money on the SW.

This will only affect a small minority of people in the world who have enough money to maintain a really powerful gaming PC and want to dabble in console gaming as well. The market that will be impacted by this is minimal.

 

[dancrane212]

Good point, and when you lock someone into a platform like the Xbox with an exclusive they had enough interest in to buy a console specifically for.. well now they want to explore more games to use on that $300 investment.. so now they might be looking at exclusives that maybe they had little interest in or didn't know about. This will no longer be the case.. just play Recore on PC and move along.

But if someone already has a PC good enough to play an XB1 port like Recore how much are you willing to believe they will pick up anything that isn't exclusive to the XB1 on their console? If all they buy is exclusive titles how much is Microsoft really going to make back on the subsidised console they sold that user? If the PC owner just bought those games directly from MS on PC (and maybe an Xbox controller or other accessory) the only thing MS would loose out on is a Gold sub if that user was also going to subscribe just to play some exclusives on-line.

Of course gold subs are still important too. I just don't think it would be that common a situation where a PC owner has a gold sub for multiplayer for 1 or 2 exclusive games - going off of the fact that the top Xbox multiplayer games are 90% third party now.

 

[Swass]

How is being 'Locked in' for one game in hopes for other future exclusives good for gamers?

How is a customer having $300 extra bucks to spend on games bad for MS? They just need to put $300 worth of games to catch that consumers interest onto their PC platform.

I don't think I mentioned how it affects gamers.. I was more pointing out how it might be bad for Microsoft and the Xbox ecosystem.

 

[Bgamer90]

I have to disagree with TC. The common logic holds true for me. I don't own an XBO, but was really interested in Recore. Now I will just play it on my pc and that thread of desire to buy an XBO has been cut. I agree it's good for developers and studios to get more sales and make more games, but only Microsoft studios are part of that. So XBO might get a sequel from Microsoft studios for a game that it otherwise wouldn't have without the pc sales, but every other 3rd developer will have more reason to shy away. I think that will amount to a net loss on number of games for XBO.

But third party developers are releasing their games on PC anyway.

There are far more third party games than exclusives on the Xbox. If anything, third party companies would be the ones that would cause people to "shy away" from Xbox. Many are still buying Xbox Ones to play those games though so I don't see how this move from MS will cause any notable changes.

 

[Trup1aya]

I don't think I mentioned how it affects gamers.. I was more pointing out how it might be bad for Microsoft and the Xbox ecosystem.

Oh, that's generally what the thread was about. so my bad, but:

How is it bad for MS if they are selling more software?

That's where they make money, not by selling consoles to people who only want it for the exclusives... Seriously, that type of user not only makes for a tiny part of their consumer base, but is also the least profitable...

But guess what, if they can sell those guys games without a $300 box standing in the way, MS stands to make much more money.

There's no sound argument to how this could hurt the ecosystem.

 

[Sydle]

And investing in a PC to play XBO games means you get access to XBO games and PC exclusives.

To me that doesnt look too good for XBO console sales. And makes gaming on PC alot more attractive. IMO....something like Steam Machines will be an X factor in all this if it can run MS/XBO/Windows games.

I don't see why anyone would buy a Xbox console locked down to only the Windows Store if there are similarly priced alternatives with comparable/better performance that access everything a Windows PC can. I'm starting to think MS won't have a choice but to go the Steam Machine route, but I also see why they wouldn't want to.

I'm really curious to see how all this plays out.

 

[Beerman462]

I don't think I mentioned how it affects gamers.. I was more pointing out how it might be bad for Microsoft and the Xbox ecosystem.

Anecdotal evidence, but I play on PC primarily. I bought a PS4 for Bloodborn and Naughty Dog. Since then I have bought The Order and Infamous, both for $10ea. If Sony started releasing all of their exclusives on PC I would have done the same. Unless I really want a game, I'm not spending $60 on especially just to justify another questionable purchase. That's throwing good money after bad and is a bad idea every time.

I don't see why anyone would buy a Xbox console locked down to only the Windows Store if there are similarly priced alternatives with comparable/better performance that access everything a Windows PC can. I'm starting to think MS won't have a choice but to go the Steam Machine route, but I also see why they wouldn't want to.

I'm really curious to see how all this plays out.

Think of it this way. The Xbox One is a Windows equivalent of a Steam Machine. They will always have a price advantage over other manufacturers, because of the Windows licensing fee. Unless Steam machines really take off and games are made in Open GL to run on Linux. If anything this is Microsoft's way of heading that off.

 

[Anno]

Only time will tell but I suspect it won't have much of an effect either way on Xbox-only gamers. Everyone else benefits. Seems like a good direction, assuming the execution is right.

 

[Swass]

How is it bad for MS if they are selling more software?

That's where they make money, not by selling consoles to people who only want it for the exclusives... Seriously, that type of user not only makes for a small part of their consumer base, but is also the least profitable...

But guess what, if they can sell those guys games without a $300 box standing in the way, Ms stands to make much more money.

There's no sound argument to how this could hurt the ecosystem.

That's a pretty big assumption that a gamer is going to take the $300 saved on a console and funnel it directly back to Microsoft specific games.

I'm sure Microsoft did the math and this move has more positives than negatives, but I don't think it hurts to be skeptical and question the move. Not all big company decisions have netted positive outcomes.

 

[Trup1aya]

Anecdotal evidence, but I play on PC primarily. I bought a PS4 for Bloodborn and Naughty Dog. Since then I have bought The Order and Infamous, both for $10ea. If Sony started releasing all of their exclusives on PC I would have done the same. Unless I really want a game, I'm not spending $60 on especially just to justify another questionable purchase. That's throwing good money after bad and is a bad idea every time.

This.

The type of customer who more focused on PC and is only buying exclusives on console isn't really a profitable customer. So to have that person skip the console and buy the software on their PC is a much better move.

That's a pretty big assumption that a gamer is going to take the $300 saved on a console and funnel it directly back to Microsoft specific games.

I'm sure Microsoft did the math and this move has more positives than negatives, but I don't think it hurts to be skeptical and question the move. Not every big companies decisions has netted positive outcomes.

I'm not assuming that they'd spend the whole $300 on MS PC games.

They'd atleast by the exclusives they were interested in in the first place. So at worst they'd break even, once you accept that the console's themselves don't make MS any money.

The money is made through software sales. If a customer's only interest is exclusive games, then MS never stood to make much profit from that user.

If MS can lower the barrier of entry for this type of customer, then the upper bound of their profit potential from that consumer increases.

In other words, MS doesn't lose anything by having that type of user skip the console. But the potential to gain increases.

 

[Trup1aya]

Edit: double post

 

[vcc]

Maybe the thread should be renamed to "Microsoft releasing exclusives games on PC is good for everyone except the small minority of primarily PC gamers who bought the Xbox one for PURELY to play exclusives (they care nothing for console specific benefits, features and services), but well in advance of the worthwhile exclusives actually coming out, only to find out that they could have waited for a PC release, and realize that maybe they should have waited in the first place , because at this point, their Xbox was collecting dust anyway"

1) I think people in that situation are of a tiny minority of Xbox owners

2) If someone finds themselves in the situation, I have to question why they purchased the Xbox when they did in the first place. If you bought the Xbox before games came out that you wanted to play on Xbox, it shouldnt take this announcement to realize that you wasted your money.

I think we all are smart enough to agree that buying a console for a handful of exclusives that aren't even out yet is silly. Most people that buy consoles early on do so for more immediate satifaction. It's usually some combination of exclusives, where their friends play online, easy to travel with etc.

It's bad for most of the XB1 base. It signals that MS values the capital they sunk into the games more than the capital they invested in the XB1. It means internally that the XB division probably has lost support and there will not be a XB2 (ot XB10 because MS hates sequential naming). It probably also means MS will stop trying to get exclusives or even try very hard to influence publishers to come to their platform.

I think it means MS experiment in consoles is done and the XBox brand is likely going to get rolled into Windows. Which isn't that bad for PC gamers but Xbox folks are looking at the end of the line.

 

[Beerman462]

It's bad for most of the XB1 base. It signals that MS values the capital they sunk into the games more than the capital they invested in the XB1. It means internally that the XB division probably has lost support and there will not be a XB2 (ot XB10 because MS hates sequential naming). It probably also means MS will stop trying to get exclusives or even try very hard to influence publishers to come to their platform.

I think it means MS experiment in consoles is done and the XBox brand is likely going to get rolled into Windows. Which isn't that bad for PC gamers but Xbox folks are looking at the end of the line.

If Microsoft went straight PC they would get destroyed by Steam. Microsoft doesn't abandon hardware often. In fact the only thing I can think of is the Zune, but that became Windows phone which they are still supporting by the way. They can sell a Windows 10 gaming machine called Xbox 10 and plenty of people will still buy it and they can sell it cheaper than anyone else, because of the Windows license. I don't think they will give up the market to Sony, they still do well in the US and as we saw with this generation. Gamer loyalties swap all the time.

 

[wapplew]

You do realize that Sony and MS don't make money on the HW right? They are likely pricing slightly above cost. They make money on the SW.

What missing here is one reason why Xbox one is important to MS, they are the exclusive store front on Xbox one.
Everyone say biggest seller on console is third party, and every copy of third party sold on Xbox one give MS a cut.
You lost a Xbox one customer, you lost chance of him buy first party on it and most importantly you also lost chance of him buy third party titles on your platform.

On PC, it's whole other condition, MS no longer the exclusive storefront on that platform even they make the OS and everything.
Yes, when a Xbox owner give up Xbox one and buy your first party game on PC, you get one software sales,
but you might never get him buy third party game on your store because a) only one third party game available on Windows store now.
B) third party don't have to give you shit when they can sell it at their own store or they go with the biggest store available now, steam.

So, a gain for first party titles money might be a lost for many third party royalties, good for MS? We'll see.

 

[Trup1aya]

It's bad for most of the XB1 base. It signals that MS values the capital they sunk into the games more than the capital they invested in the XB1. It means internally that the XB division probably has lost support and there will not be a XB2 (ot XB10 because MS hates sequential naming). It probably also means MS will stop trying to get exclusives or even try very hard to influence publishers to come to their platform.

I think it means MS experiment in consoles is done and the XBox brand is likely going to get rolled into Windows. Which isn't that bad for PC gamers but Xbox folks are looking at the end of the line.

Huh? The games ARE where the value is. It's where it has always been. Consoles have only ever been a vehicle to sell games... it's the same whether we're talking MS, Sony or Nintendo.

All the other stuff you think it signals can't be further from the truth.

yes, the Xbox brand IS being rolled into Windows... But specifically, how is this bad for people that choose to play on console? How does having PC players playing the same games negatively affect someone who chooses to play on console?

What missing here is one reason why Xbox one is important to MS, they are the exclusive store front on Xbox one.
Everyone say biggest seller on console is third party, and every copy of third party sold on Xbox one give MS a cut.
You lost a Xbox one customer, you lost chance of him buy first party on it and most importantly you also lost chance of him buy third party titles on your platform.

On PC, it's whole other condition, MS no longer the exclusive storefront on that platform even they make the OS and everything.
Yes, when a Xbox owner give up Xbox one and buy your first party game on PC, you get one software sales,
but you might never get him buy third party game on your store because a) only one third party game available on Windows store now.
B) third party don't have to give you shit when they can sell it at their own store or they go with the biggest store available now, steam.

So, a gain for first party titles money might be a lost for many third party royalties, good for MS? We'll see.

How are they losing third party royalties? We are talking specifically about PC gamers who would buy a console JUST to play exclusives. They were never going to buy 3rd parties on the console anyway.

Secondly, while MS isn't the only storefront on PC, it'll be the only place to buy MS games. That's the point. They are drawing people into their ecosystem, that otherwise probably wouldn't have been in it at all.

 

[Swass]

They'd atleast by the exclusives they were interested in in the first place. So at worst they'd break even, once you accept that the console's themselves don't make MS any money.

The money is made through software sales. If a customer's only interest is exclusive games, then MS never stood to make much profit from that user.

If MS can lower the barrier of entry for this type of customer, then the upper bound of their profit potential from that consumer increases.

In other words, MS doesn't lose anything by having that type of user skip the console. But the potential to gain increases.

How true is it though that software is where the money is at? Let's use Valve as an example.. they don't even put much effort into software any longer because they make far more money on their ecosystem than software ever could. So if Microsoft is shifting away from a flourishing walled garden ecosystem, how much do they really stand to make?

 

[Beerman462]

What missing here is one reason why Xbox one is important to MS, they are the exclusive store front on Xbox one.
Everyone say biggest seller on console is third party, and every copy of third party sold on Xbox one give MS a cut.
You lost a Xbox one customer, you lost chance of him buy first party on it and most importantly you also lost chance of him buy third party titles on your platform.

On PC, it's whole other condition, MS no longer the exclusive storefront on that platform even they make the OS and everything.
Yes, when a Xbox owner give up Xbox one and buy your first party game on PC, you get one software sales,
but you might never get him buy third party game on your store because a) only one third party game available on Windows store now.
B) third party don't have to give you shit when they can sell it at their own store or they go with the biggest store available now, steam.

So, a gain for first party titles money might be a lost for many third party royalties, good for MS? We'll see.

How many times does it need to be said. PC gamers don't buy 3rd party on a console they bought for exclusives.