Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
This idea completely rules out the (much more likely) possibility that MS intends to continue to operate in the gaming market on the console front AND make headway in the PC front.
The idea that they would think it wise to trade:
- all of the XBL subscriptions
- the majority of the 1st party business
- all of their 3rd party business
- a niche PC 1st party business
is wildly irrational.
It's clear to me that this move is meant to compliment their existing gaming business. They want to maximize their earning potential by reducing the PC enthusiast's barrier to entry into their ecosystem.
The reasons this is good for people who play on consoles:
- cross-play opportunities allow for larger and more sustained playerbases
- additonal revenues provide more incentive for more investment
So even if a PC enthusiasts choose to skip on the console, the potential Xbox player base is actually increased. There's no downside to existing Xbox customers.
When the next Xbox hardware launches, i fully expect it to be more closely tied with the Win10 store. Developing an xbox2 console title will mean developing a game that is already primed for the Win10 store. Developers will not want to miss out on the combined market.
VincentMatts
Member
Its good for MS, it isnt good for Xbox owners. Its one less reason to buy the console.
I can see people going over the decision on their heads about getting an Xbone or not because of this, even if it doesn't really affect them. I just think it will definitely factor into the decision for some, but I'm sure MS also factored in those situations and it made sense for them to expand more of their Xbone exclusives to PC.
The question remains though... will the cost of porting the games to PC (not sure how expensive or cheap it would be) eat the potential revenue they can get from those sales? Is there a projection already by any chance?
The question remains though... will the cost of porting the games to PC (not sure how expensive or cheap it would be) eat the potential revenue they can get from those sales? Is there a projection already by any chance?
that's a good question and I'm by no means an expert on porting costs, but it seems that the porting process in general is becoming easier has console hardware and dev tools becomes more PC like.
Any word on whether there will be crossplay or if saves will transfer? I would love to be able to play campaign on my PC and then play multiplayer on xbox!
cross-play has been announced for Gigantic, Halo Wars 2, Fable Legends and Killer Instict. Quantum Break is confirmed to have save transfer (it doesn't have a MP component).
So yes your wish has been granted
If I had to reckon, they'd include these features anywhere it made sense... I would expect them to allow cross-play for shooters for example.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Any word on whether there will be crossplay or if saves will transfer? I would love to be able to play campaign on my PC and then play multiplayer on xbox!
Saves yes, play provisionally. Some games will have it some games won't. I know that Gigantic, Fable Legends, and Killer Instinct will all have it.
(Cloud saves are tied to your MS/Xbox account, so those'll follow you everywhere).
Yeah, it shouldn't be very expensive (compared to a PS3 to PC port for example), but it will depend on the effort and how well optimized the games are. It could backfire if the games are ported with performance issues, so I imagine that a decent amount of money will go to them so the games run well. Also, it will depend on who will port the games. Will it be an in-house studio or a third party?
It would be nice to know an approximate of how much the games must sell on PC to profit. We won't really know that though.
VincentMatts
Member
Any word on whether there will be crossplay or if saves will transfer? I would love to be able to play campaign on my PC and then play multiplayer on xbox!
They said you can start it on xbox and continue on pc, so i think saves are cloud based.
Yeah, I suppose that type of thing is going to very on a case by case basis...
I'm not sure if how profitable MS's 1st party has been on consoles. But I'd imagine it's generally a situation where the console versions sales performance is what justifies the games existance, and the PC version is just icing on the cake.
So, to actually weigh in on this topic ...
The Xbox One is going to potentially lose some exclusives, including Quantum Break to a small, relatively new platform ... the Windows 10 store.
I suspect that in the long run this announcement will have a very small impact, if any at all. This will be similar to PS4 titles like "MLB: The Show" showing up on the Vita: it's not going take away from sales on the more mainstream platform.
I can't see it being "great" for Xbox One owners. There's a very vocal group of guys in this thread really trying to make that case, but I remain unconvinced at this point.
It will increase Microsoft's MAU numbers, because they'll simply add anyone that uses the Windows 10 store to the totals, and I suspect that's really what this is all about.
The Xbox One is going to potentially lose some exclusives, including Quantum Break to a small, relatively new platform ... the Windows 10 store.
I suspect that in the long run this announcement will have a very small impact, if any at all. This will be similar to PS4 titles like "MLB: The Show" showing up on the Vita: it's not going take away from sales on the more mainstream platform.
I can't see it being "great" for Xbox One owners. There's a very vocal group of guys in this thread really trying to make that case, but I remain unconvinced at this point.
It will increase Microsoft's MAU numbers, because they'll simply add anyone that uses the Windows 10 store to the totals, and I suspect that's really what this is all about.
I agree. They really have nothing to lose with this move. If the games sell well and they profit then great, if the games don't sell enough and the investment doesn't make sense anymore, they can just stop porting them. As simple as that.
I don't believe this decision will considerably hamper Xbone sales whether it works or not.
I think that's pretty obvious, so I agree. However, I think they believe that they can get more money from their first games in the process.
serversurfer
Member
I'm not sure why only one side needs to produce numbers…
But how about this? At the beginning of last year, there were 101.9M PC gamers in the US, and of those, 72.7M also gamed on console. Of those 72.7M, 45.3M were on XBox.
Now, at the time — c. January 2015 — the US install base for the Bone was only 6.3M. So that means there were a minimum of 39M PC gamers who had a 360, but hadn't upgraded to the Bone yet, and probably more. If you assume ~45M XB360 sold in the US, that means about 90% of the US XBox audience for Gen7 also gamed on their PC.
So if 90% of XB360 gamers are also PC gamers, when it does come time for them to upgrade, isn't it far better for them to put a $200 GPU in to the computer they already have than it is to drop $300 on a Bone? Especially when they can play online for free instead — and still with their old friends on Bone, thanks to the magic of Live — and the software is all way cheaper too, partly because there's no licensing fee, and partly because PC gamers typically don't pay more than five or ten bucks for a game, no matter what it is.
So if upgrading to the Bone is now a "dumb move" for about 90% of US XB360 owners who should be upgrading their PC instead, wouldn't that quite literally decimate Bone sales?
Sure, WoW, but is Starcraft actually considered a AAA game? I mean, I know it's got a hardcore following and is hugely anticipated, at least within that group, and to be fair, I haven't played Starcraft since it was Warcraft 2, but I think of that as more of a mid-tier game. I could be way off base though.
Either way, there doesn't really seem to be a ton of money being spent on developing PC exclusives —MMOs aside — so it seems like perhaps the spending just isn't there to support such an endeavor.
Edit: For a little more clarity, I would think of Bloodborne as AA, or "very best of the mid-tier stuff." Anything like that happening on PC, even?
I'm not talking about whether something like Uncharted is a "big earner" per se. It's more about breaking even at all. No, Sony aren't looking to make bank on Uncharted because yes, it primarily exists as advertising for their platform, but they wouldn't have made four of them if it was losing money hand over fist, and they wouldn't be starting new projects like Horizon. Agreed?
But if you look at the financials for companies that do make big-budget games and bring them to PC, the PC sales only account for a tiny fraction of their revenues. So when you start with the anemic Bone base that can't support an exclusive and add a tiny amount of revenue from stingy PC users, how much have you really gained? If Bone isn't generating enough dollars to support a game like QB, is adding in the PC revenue really going to change things all that much?
Sure, but the main difference is MS don't actually control Windows, just their own store. If you buy a PS4 because Uncharted, odds are pretty good that you'll be buying all of your games through Sony, no matter who actually publishes them. While Quantum Break may indeed entice you to spend some money in the W10 store, there's nothing whatsoever stopping you from buying literally every other game through a rival's store.
It's okay if big budget exclusives like Uncharted merely break even, because they lure people in to a taxable zone, where they tend to remain for several years, at minimum. There's nothing to keep MS users in their taxable zone for more than a couple of minutes, and the only reason to go there at all is to buy MS products; anything else you can get elsewhere, perhaps even cheaper directly from the publisher, or just another store that wants your business.
What's good for Xbox One owners long term is the health of the Xbox One console platform, NOT the success of the windows store.
The success of the Xbox One console is majorly predicated on adoption (the actual purchase of Xbox hardware), revenue from Xbox Live (subscription service), and royalties from third party software. That keeps MS supporting the console and allocating budgets to support it. Windows store revenue is windows revenue - not Xbox's. Call it integration or whatever...you're not going to get an Xbox Two if you begin to lose adoption slowly but surely to the point where MS second-guesses the costly venture of another console - this gen is lost (no ground made on Europe, dead in Japan (like everyone else - but they're truly dead), butt-kicked in NA). There are many dimensions to this....not just black and white variables that simply move with 0 net loss (which bottomline does not exist btw). VCC makes good points all around. The PS4 isn't even considered like at all (the passive benefits to the market leader with obvious mind share advantages) - news like this only reinforce the talk out there to go with PS4, for gamers with gaming PC, and gamers without. It also doesn't consider Sony's approach (cause they haven't capitalized with marketing yet). "True exclusive" marketing and pot shots should be a strategy for Sony to consider - in a novel way of course. If Sony doesn't it's either because they can't device a strategy to do so and thus somewhat incompetent of their marketers (wouldn't be surprised) or they feel there is no need to bury a competitor on its way out.
A different tune would be sung if it was announced in 2013 that Xbox One exclusives would be shared on PC. The PS4 would be in a much stronger position today you can believe that....
NX is on the horizon too, + PSVR....anything that weakens the Xbox brand, or appears (perception challenge™
to weaken it (if you so happen to believe it does not) is not welcomed.
The success of the Xbox One console is majorly predicated on adoption (the actual purchase of Xbox hardware), revenue from Xbox Live (subscription service), and royalties from third party software. That keeps MS supporting the console and allocating budgets to support it. Windows store revenue is windows revenue - not Xbox's. Call it integration or whatever...you're not going to get an Xbox Two if you begin to lose adoption slowly but surely to the point where MS second-guesses the costly venture of another console - this gen is lost (no ground made on Europe, dead in Japan (like everyone else - but they're truly dead), butt-kicked in NA). There are many dimensions to this....not just black and white variables that simply move with 0 net loss (which bottomline does not exist btw). VCC makes good points all around. The PS4 isn't even considered like at all (the passive benefits to the market leader with obvious mind share advantages) - news like this only reinforce the talk out there to go with PS4, for gamers with gaming PC, and gamers without. It also doesn't consider Sony's approach (cause they haven't capitalized with marketing yet). "True exclusive" marketing and pot shots should be a strategy for Sony to consider - in a novel way of course. If Sony doesn't it's either because they can't device a strategy to do so and thus somewhat incompetent of their marketers (wouldn't be surprised) or they feel there is no need to bury a competitor on its way out.
A different tune would be sung if it was announced in 2013 that Xbox One exclusives would be shared on PC. The PS4 would be in a much stronger position today you can believe that....
NX is on the horizon too, + PSVR....anything that weakens the Xbox brand, or appears (perception challenge™
to weaken it (if you so happen to believe it does not) is not welcomed.I have ejected out of this thread some pages ago, but this statement summarizes the news pretty appropriately.
Xbox is under Windows and has been for a while now. Console will still be around because Microsoft need a mass consumer entry device, a high end PC isn't that device. The only death knell for the console is if they suddenly go mobile, low end gaming across underpowerd PCs, Mobiles and much cheaper streaming boxes but that area seems swamped by F2P crap and expected rock bottom prices so maybe not too appealing. Also, people would have to use the Windows Store like the Apple Store and of course devs making the apps.
I don't know what I'm missing then when I think this:
They now have a bigger potential userbase, when another game like Sunset Overdrive is pitched to them, they have an easier time saying yes to it because the bigger pool of people = less risk.
So projects like "Dreams" or whatever that PS4 game is called will have an easier time getting greenlit for Xbox.
It will all depend on how much it will cost them to port and optimize the games, and how well the games do to justify the investment. We really don't know if they want to port the games to actually invest in more risky IP's, to solely recoup a bit more money without actually developing too many new games or if it's just a plan to increase MAUs and keep investors happy.
All in all, I think it's a win-win in the sense that they can ditch the plan easily if it's not panning out. MAUSs will increase regardless so if that's really their plan then the ports may continue, but I imagine that they will just port whatever's already in the pipeline.
Pathfinder
Member
Bingo. It's really as simple as that.
biglittleps
Member
What's good for Xbox One owners long term is the health of the Xbox One console platform, NOT the success of the windows store.
The success of the Xbox One console is majorly predicated on adoption (the actual purchase of Xbox hardware), revenue from Xbox Live (subscription service), and royalties from third party software. That keeps MS supporting the console and allocating budgets to support it. Windows store revenue is windows revenue - not Xbox's. Call it integration or whatever...you're not going to get an Xbox Two if you begin to lose adoption slowly but surely to the point where MS second-guesses the costly venture of another console - this gen is lost (no ground made on Europe, dead in Japan (like everyone else - but they're truly dead), butt-kicked in NA). There are many dimensions to this....not just black and white variables that simply move with 0 net loss (which bottomline does not exist btw). VCC makes good points all around. The PS4 isn't even considered like at all (the passive benefits to the market leader with obvious mind share advantages) - news like this only reinforce the talk out there to go with PS4, for gamers with gaming PC, and gamers without. It also doesn't consider Sony's approach (cause they haven't capitalized with marketing yet). "True exclusive" marketing and pot shots should be a strategy for Sony to consider - in a novel way of course. If Sony doesn't it's either because they can't device a strategy to do so and thus somewhat incompetent of their marketers (wouldn't be surprised) or they feel there is no need to bury a competitor on its way out.
A different tune would be sung if it was announced in 2013 that Xbox One exclusives would be shared on PC. The PS4 would be in a much stronger position today you can believe that....
NX is on the horizon too, + PSVR....anything that weakens the Xbox brand, or appears (perception challenge™
What if next Xbox is just a Windows PC on a box ?
This.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Do (regular) users of the Windows store even count as MAUs? I mean, they don't pay a monthly fee (yet). Because of the subscription to XBOX Live Gold MS should be interested to sell games (especially the ones with MP) on their console, not the Windows store. So porting costs are not the only thing one has to take into account when comparing both sales channels.
I believe that they will count those who use the Windows store an active user. I may be wrong though.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Yeah, but knowing MS they'd lock out Steam => DOA. Besides that, no, that seems to be very unlikely with regard to MS' focus and strategy.
biglittleps
Member
They are paying one time fee for Windows OS license right ? So they might be considered.
MilkyJoe
Member
And you know it's just way easier to have a console in the living room than all the faff that comes with a PC
Indeed. I'll be playing them on Xbox One just the same, as I bought both the Xbox One and PS4 because I prefer consoles. They are still Xbox games that are not on PS4. Nothing has changed for folks like me.
biglittleps
Member
Well they are making some good efforts to make their Windows store attractive by releasing exclusives of Xbox, so lets see how they are going to move forward from feb 25 event related to the store features which many are complaining. If they can get every upcoming PC and Xbox exclusive on their storefront by offering some cross-buy and other promotions then they may able to gain some success due to their Xbox marketing, retail presence and Windows OS.
LukasTaves
Member
A bigger platform means more games means more reasons to buy a console.
Lister
Banned
And you know it's just way easier to have a console in the living room than all the faff that comes with a PC
You mean NOT playing the best version of the game just a little bit late? 'cause the PC version is STILL the best version, certianly over the Xbone version.
I mean, console architecture is so similar to PC, DX12 across the board, it's never been easier to port games to PC.
Still, there's a cost in the equation and they will most certainly optimize the games so there's minimal performance issues, if at all (not doing so would be counterproductive). It will also depend on who will do the porting. If the games don't sell enough to justify the investment, I don't see them investing all that much in new/risky IPs, at the very least.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Xbone and Windows already got Project Spark. I'm not sure Microsoft will be trying that again.
I'm baffled that it is even an argument... still. Whatever, back to worrying about the games for me.
MAUs for the Xbox team are those who login to the Xbox Live service, Silver or Gold. Just browsing the Store requires your Microsoft Account, but that doesn't automatically log you into Live. Firing up the Xbox App or a game that requires the Live service (I'm going to assume anytime a Xbox game is launched) requires your Live login.
You're not considering any of the theoretical revenue of cross purchases from more regular shoppers in the Windows Store. QB will drive hundreds of thousands of browsers in the Store at least, as will games like KI, Halo Wars, Sea of Thieves, ReCore, etc. Every time they come back MS has another shot to show them more of what the store offers in addition to what they came to get. Amazon does it to you every time you visit, and they get smarter about how to put the right things in front of you next time based on your browsing behavior, trying to make you a repeat, valuable customer.
Microsoft has financial experts and business analysts weighing all of this out. It's not hard to see how putting big game IP in the Windows Store that, one day, may have billions of people accessing just because it's built into Windows 10, could lead to surges in store browsing and purchasing. Doing that over and over again no doubt will convert some browsers into repeat buyers that could take additional items as well.
I was just thinking...if I played QB at the same time on my PC as my Xbox...I could fuck some shit up. Like say I start the game on my PC and Xbox at the same time, start the game, beat a level, it saves, I go a little further (the xbox is still on but standing still) and I get to level 2 and it saves. I turn off the PC version and continue the xbox version and it gets to Level 1 and saves, it will most likely overwrite that save I did on PC...and that's a BUG (if they haven't solved it already with a timestamp).
justsomeguy
Member
So why isnt every other console in history DOA? Or did I miss the steam client on ps4?
VincentMatts
Member
How so? There isnt going to be a ton more games, theres going to be about the same amount of games that previously werent compatible, but now are.
Anyone who has a good PC and thought of jumping in on xbox now clearly will not.
Couldn't they label each save as where they originate from and then treat them as separate files you could choose between when first loading up?
For example, you start QB and it says:
Sync data from W10 version (if you own it) or continue with local storage?
If you sync the data, that save file will now be saved as originating from the xbox, and when you play the game on W10 will offer the same option, just "xbox console" instead of windows 10.
If you dont, it will just continue with the save you already had on the xbox, if any.
And vice versa for playing W10, it will act as a seperate file unless it detects you also play and own the game on xbox, where it offer you the choice to import the save or keep it seperate.
justsomeguy
Member
The point really is that you don't need to port. Build it from day 1 as a uap and it works on both Xbox one and pc. I'm sure there will be platform specific chunks of code but fundamentally you are just building one game, there's no "port" required.
Hmm if that's the case then I imagine the cost will be kept to a minimum. I'm not familiar with how that works though so I wouldn't know how much they would have to spend additionally to get the PC version out. I'm just guessing it would be in the low end compared to an actual port.
However, that would mean that the same developer would carry out the project, no? Maybe MS prefers to outsource it? You wouldn't want to delay the console version because there are some issues with the PC version (assuming both versions will release simultaneously). Too many unknowns, tbh.
justsomeguy
Member
Yeah this is all handled already, you can play on two different xboxes. It tells you your local data is out of sync with the cloud data and asks which you want to keep.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Because we're talking about next XBOX being a regular Windows PC, not a console (unless I got that one wrong). Just try selling a Windows PC with a proprietary Windows client which doesn't allow you to install / run programs like Steam (or any .exe for that matter). MS isn't Apple...
This is exactly what it will be. But it will a streamlined version of the OS dedicated to gaming and multimedia.
Locking out steam won't make it DOA, because it will be designed to appeal to the console market, who doesn't care about steam.
Instead of the XBL store folks will be buying from the Windows store, but it will have all of the benefits developers and customers expect from consoles. The choice to play disc versions, A single hardware configuration to target. A relatively low price point, and a single unified online service.
Edit:
Yea I think you got that one wrong. For all intents and purposes it will be a console. But it will also act as a Trojan horse to get more 3rd party software into the Windows store.
justsomeguy
Member
Same as Xbox one then... Which is windows 10.
The next Xbox will be just like the past Xbox. I gaming\entertainment system with a similar OS.
Xbox One is already Windows 10.
Except that the actual argument people are making is that 1 > 1 / 2.
And again, I'm still not convinced that "Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC is Great for Xbox Owners" ... it's neutral at best.
This question has been asked an unbelievable amount of times in this thread, and it's not really hard to understand.
By offering a game to a larger install base, it could mean more sales which could lead to more support for that particular game or franchise.
It also benefits games using crossplay by expanding the playerpool, which increases longevity, especially in multiplayer focused games.
To which, you'll just say there's no current evidence to support this belief, or some subjective reasoning as to why its not true, and then the retort will be that there no real evidence to support your cynicism either.
Then, it will keep going until someone says the exact same thing, restarting the circle.
Here's the thing, until these games actually drop and we get some numbers, both sides of this arguement are at a standstill, and yet people are coming in on a 20 page plus thread and keeping this circle spinning.