Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
Beerman462
Member
I would like that. I like Halo but not enough to buy a console.
I already regret the PS4 purchase.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Per the thread title, the onus is still on people to explain how this is somehow "great for Xbox owners".
This thread isn't about convincing others how little of an effect this will have.
This thread isn't about explaining how "this doesn't affect me" or "most people don't care" or "the majority of console owners won't see any difference".
This thread isn't about how losing exclusives isn't a bad thing in this particular case because in the long run it helps Microsoft's ecosystem.
It isn't about hand-waving away the very straightforward logic and historical precedent that losing exclusives affects the long-term health of a console by saying that PC owners who aren't Xbox Owners and Xbox owners who aren't PC owners can now own their games in a market that Microsoft is expanding because PR blah blah blah.
It isn't about how cross-buy will help X1 owners preserve a small portion of their library should they choose to go to PC.
The thread is about how this is great for Xbox owners.
On that front, no one has been able to put up a decent argument. It keeps circling back to non-related defenses because there really isn't anything "great" about this for Xbox One owners.
At best -- at the most hopeful, optimistic, pie-in-the-sky idealistic best -- Xbox One might get some more games due to cross-compatibility between Xbox PC store and the Xbox One. But until we reach that point, we have a mountain of historical data and past trends (including Microsoft's own past behavior) that do not paint this change in a positive light for Xbox One owners.
It's good for Xbox gamers because the games, which are still MS platform exclusives just not X1, will get more exposure. X1 owners will also get free PC version of said game if they buy it( as far as QB goes).
I really only see the bad points coming from a missguided sense of regret towards the purchase as if MS made it invalid, as if the fun times they've had or can continue to have are invalid because the games are getting a bit more exposure, which is BS, the X1 is still the same console with the same games the same fun. Also I imagine it is a small majority which would really be affected by it because they already have a PC. I am one of those, but still don't see the negatives here.
This could be bad if it is seen as lossing exclusives, but they are not. It's like saying SFV will fail because even though Sony bought exclusivity it is coming to PC.
It's great for Xbox owners because they get two versions of the same game for one price and if they happen to have a PC then, free game. Other than that exposure of the franchises because they would come to other MS platforms would be good.
That totally fits in with the statement that it is "great for Xbox owners", but I'm sure it will be put in a negative light because for some reason I think they feel shafted and that is the worst thing to them. Most will complain about it and then the narrative will be that MS screwed them personally so it's bad. The only thing I do not understand is why they think their console is now obsolete for some reason, if anything it might be the overreaction to this that causes the most harm.
Right there with ya bud. Though I have them both in the same room. Still doesn't make a difference and they're still both good platforms to game in. There are still tons of other game that will come for it that may not be on PC, even if they are being on Xbox doesn't mean it's not fun.
Bitch Pudding
Member
schwarzeneggerwrong.gif
Pretty much what I'm saying. This implies there will be no console successor. The brand will get rolled into promoting Windows.
Except this isn't a logic or historical precedented notion. When has the availability of 1st party exclusive on PC had a negative impact on a platforms health?
Also how are you defining 'health' if it's by number of hardware units sold, there is no data to suggest that there is much over lap between people who prefer to play on PC and people who own Xbox. So there's no indication that this will majorly affect Xbox console adoption. this tiny loss in potential sales in no way negatively effects existing Xbox users.
If you measure 'health' by the number of people buying and playing the games, then the impact this will have on the Xbox playerbase will be positive. At the end of the day, there will be more players playing Xbox games on Xbox live. The hardware they are playing in is irrelevant.
There has yet to be any compelling argument as to how an Xbox gamers experience will be negatively impacted beyond the minority who bought the console ONLY to play exclusives when they actually prefer to play on PCs
Hopefully this trend will keep up, have had no reason to buy an xbox one yet(well i bought for halo, but returned it after the disaster launch), and with QB now coming to PC there is no reason to even contemplate buying one again.
One would wonder tho if this is just a step leading to MSFT leaving the console h/w area.
One would wonder tho if this is just a step leading to MSFT leaving the console h/w area.
Does this mean people who buy consoles for exclusives actually don't buy consoles for exclusives?
Mind blown...
dancrane212
Member
I still don't think it is that crazy to think that games being on both PC and Xbox will give said games a better chance at life when you have a developer coming out and very much implying that is the case.
Where is the historical data and past trends that imply the opposite? Sure, there are games that did poorly on both platforms like Shadowrun but I can't think of a case where a game launched on PC and Xbox, sold well, and was passed on further developments on.
I also can't think of the situations where the above is true either. I can recall certain SEGA games coming to PC a couple years after the fact but that's about it. Might be missing something obvious - what are you referring to? I can think of various cases where consoles have had incredible first party line ups and did poorly in spite of them but no situation comes to mind where it was obvious a console failed because it lacked exclusive titles. Let alone because the exclusives were not "true" ones.
With the way they see the Windows 10 platform and Universal Windows Apps it's just targeting another screen...
Their OS rivals, Apple and Google are still making a lot of efforts to get in on the TV. There's absolutely no reason to believe MS will drop theirs while those two keep at it.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Lol, you said they ONLY buy exclusives. Which is just [].
With the way they see the Windows 10 platform and Universal Windows Apps it's just targeting another screen...
Their OS rivals, Apple and Google are still making a lot of efforts to get in on the TV. There's absolutely no reason to believe MS will drop theirs while those two keep at it.
The cost of competing are different. Apple and Google are offering low cost, high margin, low power media boxes competing with the raspberry pie. XB1 is competing with low margin PS4's. I think they'd shift and rather compete with Apple and Google with a low power set top box.
We are talking about numbers of significance.
Are you suggesting that people who admittedly buy xbox's just for JUST FOR EXCLUSIVES (which is already a small portion of the Xbox installed base), because they prefer to play 3rd parties elsewhere, actually end up buying a significant number of the 3rd party titles on Xbox?
So, in your mind there is some notable number of gamers going out of their way to buy inferior versions of titles that they can play on other hardware that they already own, despite having no interest in making such purchases?
I find that really hard to believe. Why are they doing this in numbers so significant, that MS wouldn't rather sell them 1st party titles digitally on PC?
Mind blown If true
Insane level of denial in this thread. Let me ask you a simple question: what do you think is MS' masterplan for Xbox? Their original vision 'reign of the living room' from 2000 has failed miserably. Their updated vision of that idea has failed miserably in 2013. Yes, Xbox may be profitable right now, but they have said it themselves 'this is a marathon, not a sprint'. Only problem is they were talking about the future, but that marathon started many years ago. I'm not sure if they will ever hit black numbers with this venture at all. People keep forgetting that any hardware business is way more expensive and risky than software business. They have learned this the hard way -RROD. As some of you have already mentioned, they need a way bigger piece of the pie to make this whole thing pay off for them. Problem is, everything Xbox related seems to be in an downward trend: no one gives a fuck about Kinect anymore, Halo + Gears can't increase their marketshare and a rather losing fans than winning new ones. And to be fair, we can't even say for sure how the console space will look like in 10 years.
Please stop using that hipster-bs-buzzword 'ecosystem' again or I will eat a kitten alive.
For us gamers, this means cross-play nothing else. No magic involved. They will never create an ecosystem that people care about or they can control 100%, because people are already satisfied with the ecosystems they are using. My company uses Google business apps for example. The average Joes do casual stuff like browsing the Inet, shopping, multimedia, messaging on their tablets and smart-phones.
MS tries to sell you 'ecosystem' as a novelty here, but in fact they are late to that party once again.
My solution: focus on one effing thing. Office is still unintuitive as fuck. Man, it's 2016. 2016!!!! I have seen so many bad 'improvements' of their software, it's beyond me. Office and Windows are exactly like FIFA. Yeah, perfect analogy...Good, because there is not enough competion - bad, because after all those years footy games should be much more advanced-
I use W10 at work - another case of changing things no one asked for, but great, now there is a tile for their own shop. MS is a slow fat giant, all of their ideas are either years too late or way ahead of our time. You'll have to wonder why Apple didn't go for the killing blow and started to get their OS into the business realm.
Please stop using that hipster-bs-buzzword 'ecosystem' again or I will eat a kitten alive.
For us gamers, this means cross-play nothing else. No magic involved. They will never create an ecosystem that people care about or they can control 100%, because people are already satisfied with the ecosystems they are using. My company uses Google business apps for example. The average Joes do casual stuff like browsing the Inet, shopping, multimedia, messaging on their tablets and smart-phones.
MS tries to sell you 'ecosystem' as a novelty here, but in fact they are late to that party once again.
My solution: focus on one effing thing. Office is still unintuitive as fuck. Man, it's 2016. 2016!!!! I have seen so many bad 'improvements' of their software, it's beyond me. Office and Windows are exactly like FIFA. Yeah, perfect analogy...Good, because there is not enough competion - bad, because after all those years footy games should be much more advanced-
I use W10 at work - another case of changing things no one asked for, but great, now there is a tile for their own shop. MS is a slow fat giant, all of their ideas are either years too late or way ahead of our time. You'll have to wonder why Apple didn't go for the killing blow and started to get their OS into the business realm.
To sell games and game-subscriptions on Windows 10 devices (current and future). Those games "follow" a user from device to device. It is the Office 365 model.
None of what you said has any relevance to the discussion. At the end of the day, the question is will MS sell more games under the Xbox brand.
They answer is yes, most likely... Whether people are playing on Xbox hardware or PC hardware will be irrelevant, as they are still playing Xbox games using Xbox services..
Bolivar687
Banned
LMFAO 10/10 for presentation but come on now. It's a certainty that this is leading to more games on Xbox One, not "the most hopeful, optimistic, pie-in-the-sky idealistic best" case scenario. The Xbox division's entire success story is based on helping computer developers find inroads to the console audience. Bungie, Bioware, Bethesda, Infinity Ward, Irrational, Epic, and more are household names because they partnered with Microsoft to make games for consoles. This is the next step in that endeavor, since we know the end goal is to make porting easier.
This isn't losing system sellers to a competitor, this is the model we've seen work with Sony having its own unfied platform across PS4/PS3/Vita. This is eventually going to lead to games that would not have otherwise existed on either PC or Xbox One which will now because of the combined audience. It's a win/win/win for gamers and developers.
The x-buy program was life support for the Vita and trying to onboard PS3 players to the PS4. Neither narrative is flattering to this situation for the XB1. Either they're trying to use strengths in one place to prop up another (PS3 propping up vita. XB1 propping up PC Live Store) or their onboarding to Windows 10 store (PS3 -> PS4).
This is not a move you do when everything is going fine. Vita is definitely dead/dying/still born. Sony did it to prop it up.
Also the original plan wasn't a altruistic move to help Bungie, Bioware, Bethesda, Infinity Ward, Irrational, Epic. The original plan was to own home computing through the living room. That planned died with the rise of Tablets.
Bolivar687
Banned
All true but this thread isn't about sugarcoating XB1 sales - it's about how this benefits XB1 owners. You can't deny Sony's unification brought more games to owners of each of the three platforms, including PS4 (Journey, Hotline Miami, OlliOlli, etc.)
Under your scenarios, this is more about propping up Windows store than onboarding; the overlap of console gamers looking to build a gaming PC just isn't there. Quantum Break is a DX12 game - this is about bringing enthusiasts into Windows 10, something Valve is doing everything in its power to stop them from doing.
Crossbuy did different things for each.
For PS3->Ps4 onboarding it made a transition easier because you already 'owned' some games on the new platform. It's effect is debatable as it was in a trivial number of games.
For the Vita, it was a easy way to show their base they still cared without spending massive amounts. It did cost them money and potential sales. Vita is still dead. Their owners just feel slightly less abandoned.
Both strategies and this one with the XB1 and PC W10 store all have costs.
For Sony they left money on the table (very little in the Vita's case) to gain some good will. It's impossible to tell if it did much. The application of cross buy was very small.
For MS they are getting more cash for the investment in those games at the expense of some sales of the XB1. This is the spot were XB1 owners would be wary, it looks like a loss of faith.
I wouldn't doubt that's on a roadmap somewhere within the Windows team offices.
There's really no reason they can't or shouldn't do both since they already have games that sell in the millions that demand higher-power hardware (at least until cloud streaming becomes a reality for them).
I think some will, yes. Not all. But some. Install base is really important, and porting isn't free.
Exclusives are important. If there is an exclusive you want to play, you are forced to buy the platform that plays it. If you can only afford 1 platform, losing an exclusive feels like losing a reason you invested in the first place. There's certainly an emotional element to it too for lots of gamers.
Ol No Bones
Banned
Microsoft are making hardware as much as they ever have even though the company is moving hard in a cloud, service based model. They literally have no reason to not make Xbox hardware. It still sells well and brings in software sales. This move doesn't reflect their willingness to continue or exit console hardware manufacturing at all. Xbox is important in the ecosystem they are building. They just don't want walls between their own damn ecosystem. It makes complete sense to open up first party games to the windows store. It's more ridiculous this didn't happen long ago.
They could become a 3rd party publisher. Much less risk than being a platform holder.
They brand their Apple TV/Android TV competitor Xbox and just shift their positioning all the way to set top boxes.
Principally, the change of first party studio strategy doesn't imply that XB1 will be super important to their long term. But we'll see.
Except the cost vs possible return is high and low respectively.
There is a reason it's unprecedented. It seems like a big shake up and you don't do big shake ups if things are going well.
The key part is that they don't control the PC ecosystem so in effect they are onboarding to a open market place from their closed one.
A key presupposition is they control the PC market. Which they don't. They are a small player there with many bigger players hogging the pie.
So it's less about 'ecosystem' or more about ROI on the money they put into the game studios; because the PC ecosystem isn't even mostly theirs.
Xb1? Of course it isn't long term. It's a console. But the windows based Xbox successor and the win10 store on Xbox will continue to be an important part of their Xbox endevours...
You are right in that xbox will be rolled into their windows intiative. But you are wrong to see this as a move away from the market that prefers to play on cheap, dedicated gaming hardware.
The reason it's unprecedented is because there is only one company in existence that owns the gaming IP, gaming brand, and popular OS required for this type of integration, and that is Microsoft.
Why do you keep suggesting that they need to control the PC market, ignoring the other publishers who have found plenty of success selling their own titles on their own stores?
staticneuron
Member
So why would anyone need a Xbox One in the future versus a compact gaming PC running Windows 10 that they can hook up to their TV?
This doesn't matter - at all.
The key for Microsoft is to get more people using their store, getting them accustomed to it and trusting it. Over time that leads to trust in them when they have sales for certain games and confidence in having a library there. Even when games sell more on Steam, or even if people do not want their game library outside of MS exclusives on the Xbox / Windows Store, it won't matter if the trust in purchasing other stuff from them has also grown, whether this is small mobile-like games, applications, tools, movies etc etc etc. Everything counts, as sales and engagement is what will matter to developers / publishers / other content creators, and increasing all of those and trust in the store will help them move forward spur growth.
This is what matters to MS rather than what is likely to be a minuscule disruption to the way Xbox 3rd party sales flow.
Less money and ease of use.
Almost all of the higher level stuff has swung above your head.
But here goes again, do you understand that the reason to be a platform holder is to get the licencing money on 3rd party games. Leaving any portion of that on the table is a very serious move that no other company has ever tried.
Do you think that had trivial reasoning or trivial consequences?
therealbigrich
Member
Tbh do I see MS dropping the Games 1st box for a more set top box that can play games I guess that's possible. Not very likely in my eyes cause to me Xbox is one of the only platforms that's somewhat thought of as positive along with Surface. It just seemed like they were more focused on changing the culture and Kinect with the X1. If they come with a gaming 1st console while keeping the TV input that was a powerful as any other system while being able to do 4k streaming it would be perfect for what they are trying to do .
If you own an Xbox and a good PC, your Xbox is essentially being made into a media box and occasionally a gaming alternative if the PC is out of action. (This is assuming you buy exclusive Xbox games and get all multiplatform games on PC which would be the most logical behaviour.) This might devalue the Xbox in some respects, in which case you could sell it if you wanted and no harm is done.
If you own a PC and not an Xbox (like me) then yay more games!
If you own an Xbox and no PC then yay you will probably get more games in the future because Microsoft Studios will have an additional revenue stream on each release!
It's a win-win for everyone really.
However, we should also look at the market repercussions for people who don't own an Xbox yet.
If someone is looking to choose between an Xbox One or a PC (probably not that common a situation) then this might make them less likely to go for Xbox.
If someone is choosing between PS4 and Xbox One (much more likely) and they don't have a PC, then this doesn't affect them. If they do have a PC, then they might feel that PS4 will have more games they can't get on the system they already own.
If you own a PC and not an Xbox (like me) then yay more games!
If you own an Xbox and no PC then yay you will probably get more games in the future because Microsoft Studios will have an additional revenue stream on each release!
It's a win-win for everyone really.
However, we should also look at the market repercussions for people who don't own an Xbox yet.
If someone is looking to choose between an Xbox One or a PC (probably not that common a situation) then this might make them less likely to go for Xbox.
If someone is choosing between PS4 and Xbox One (much more likely) and they don't have a PC, then this doesn't affect them. If they do have a PC, then they might feel that PS4 will have more games they can't get on the system they already own.
The cost to make and promote a console is enormous. They also lost that fight this generation; the generation they won they spent exorbitantly to 'win' (just as Sony spent exorbitantly to 'lose').
They're CEO is leaving that out when speaking of the future and the division is placing less emphasis on the console in their game release plans. Considering how little it contribute to their bottom line and how much it costs them to keep competing why do you think the conclusion is 'everything is great for the XB1'.
Ecosystem doesn't mean anything if it doesn't make your business money. They have a trivial market share of software for the PC platform. It make statements about ecosystem very silly.
Guy 1: We're losing $10 for each one we sell.
Guy 2: That's alright we'll make it up in volume.
The reasoning is poor. They don't control the PC market place so making up sales lost in their closed system will not come from 'ecosystem' because that ecosystem is not theirs.
It is very simply, they are stating they value the capital they spent on those games more than the capital they sunk in the XB1.
therealbigrich
Member
I defiantly understand your saying Sony did things to help systems that were not doing well but I don't think X1 is necessarily in that exact boat. I'm guessing you are saying those things didn't help vita so why would doing those things help the X1 which is understandable. I don't think this will help X1 but its something they are doing in preparation for the next Xbox that will be more unified with Windows . Its just was the best business decision they could make right now .
therealbigrich
Member
I know it may not affect you but just pointing out that Fifa, Madden and Nba 2k not on PC so if you had a Xbox and PC you could likely use more than a media box .
Mihos
Gold Member
Xbox 1 is a compact gaming pc running windows 10 that you hook up to your tv.... that is pretty much the long game
Holy shit for the millionth time you're missing the point in a massive way.
No exclusive means lower future sales. It reduces the objective value proposition of the product. It is not only the folks with high end PC's considering a XB1 that will not buy it. It is also folks with neither, folks with a okay PC considering a XB1 or upgrade, and consumers who are value oriented. It affects the entire value proposition not just small market segments.
MS has presumable done the math and the sales of their games on PC are greater than they hope to lose through that. A further implication is that sustaining the platform is more expensive than the platform is worth.
I have fifa 16 and Nba 2k16 on pc.
The platform is Windows though. I think the risk the Windows team is thinking about right now is that Windows platform becomes irrelevant in an ever-increasing mobile world. I don't see them letting the Xbox team (who reports to the Windows EVP) go third-party while they believe they have a chance against the growing threat Android and iOS.
As for MS consoles long term? I don't imagine MS giving up any screen that their competitors compete on and TV isn't going anywhere for a very long time, so I think a console of some kind will always be in the mix so long as they are fighting for Windows.
What I do think will happen over the next couple of years is that the Xbox team will start publishing a broader mix of games that target a wider audience (i.e. based on Windows 10 end user specs), in addition to their high-end games, and overtime begin to focus efforts wherever they see the most money. Their TV product offering will reflect their biggest market opportunity, and that may not be games with cutting-edge graphics. We'll just have to see.
I think there's more to it than you're suggesting. We saw a tide shift towards Sony for the last 2 years with no exclusives for the first year, with many jumping ship from Xbox 360 because Sony just nailed a few things better.
What if the next Xbox plays multi-plats better, is competitively priced, and has as many exclusive experiences you can't get on a Playstation? The tide will turn again, unless the ever-growing effect of a digital library begins to sway people's opinions, which it very well might.
You can't be an analyst.
1) not selling as many consoles as Sony has nothing to do with whether or not selling 1st party titles on PC will positively affect the Xbox brand going forward.
2) my conclusion isn't that everything is currently great for Xbox. It's that selling first party titles on PC will put the Xbox brand in a better position.
3) I agree that's ecosystem means nothing if it isn't making the business money, that's why they are positioning the Xbox brand in a way that it will make them much more money.
4) Microsoft doesn't need to 'control PC gaming' in order to make money from PC gaming. They just need to sell PC games... They control their IP and they control the Windows store. Their IP is extremely attractive to PC gamers which will draw them into the store. Why do you keeps suggesting that they need to control the entirety of PC gaming, when other publishers have already demonstrated that having your own store with compelling exclusive content is enough (ea,Ubisoft)
5) as far as how they value capital, the software is and has always been the potential source of ROI. So yes, the capital spent on games IS more important. Consoles were only ever a means to sell games and services. The same is true for any console maker.
And finally, with regards to you silly notion that removing the incentive for people who play primarily on PC to purchase Xbox hardware "leaves money on the table":
Trup1aya said:
Trup1aya. Just stop. Believe me, it's not worth it anymore. You'll go on for the next 40 pages and he won't get it. Just watch, it's more entertaining.
Considering your only contribution is:
'you just don't get it, everything is fine because reasons I won't type'
I don't think either of you made a very strong case at why this is 'Good for Xb1'.
Mostly just 'none of you get it, MS got this. They are only seeming wave a white flag because they like white a whole lot'.
Alebrije
Member
Cost
Easier to use
Community (online friends )
Relatively low replace cost
Share games (since all have the same hardware)
I think they are still very strong in their core business. I think the necessity to control the home market is gone. I suspect they won't make a direct successor and will shift focus.
therealbigrich
Member
It seems like you took a long road to say some people that may have bought a X1 will not now and MS will lose money because of that . Also that MS is fine with whatever loses from Xbox to gain profit from PC . The only thing I disagree with is that it necessarily implies sustaining Xbox is more expensive than its worth . It feels like they are hedging bets and don't see the drop in Xbox sales to be greater than the increase in PC Windows 10 gaming profits.
Either way the undertone your sending is the end of Xbox console and I don see them being close to that point especially when they created a Xbox and 360 that costed billions vs the X1 that may be profitable slightly
Yes, we understand his/your positionTrup1aya. Just stop. Believe me, it's not worth it anymore. You'll go on for the next 40 pages and he won't get it. Just watch, it's more entertaining.
The X1 also cost a lot to push out. Per unit costs are only a part of the equation. R&D, promotion, developer support, etc... all adds up. The 360 and PS3 were initially massive financial disasters for their parent companies. The X1 isn't that. But it just seems to have a much worse ROI than other MS ventures and I feel that'd be hard to justify to their bosses.
The X1 will probably coast along on it's momentum. I feel this move is MS declining to expend resources to increase that momentum. Which to me is a sign they may not try again.