SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
Then an enthusiastic box that has a second gpu like the surface book that works in random with the gpu in the SoC because of DX12
Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
Then an enthusiastic box that has a second gpu like the surface book that works in random with the gpu in the SoC because of DX12
That will be tough to market I think. Make it too much like a console inside and you fragment the playerbase, releasing to early. Make it a low price Xbox PC inside and you will get people buying it and finding a way to put their own OS (even if its windows 10) on it and make it a steam box.
Don't get me wrong, would love to see it, but, don't see a place for it in the market.
Pathfinder
Member
The Nokia situation was difficult to process, especially when thinking about all of the potential, jobs, and talent that was lost, but I don't think it's fair to draw parallels between the two. Apples and oranges.
Why? It's a video game console the next generation. Every generation has higher specs. And this gen are already PC's. I don't think he means literally Windows 10 on it. Or does he?
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Because if they had known this was going to happen, it's possible they could have used that money towards upgrading their PC instead?
It could be any number of reasons really...but this whole thing that it's going to be amazing for XB1 owners now that more games are being ported to PC is a bit...weird.
MilkyJoe
Member
I agree there's zero reason unless you can suddenly play the PC back catalogue on xbox.
That said an xbox port to PC doesn't hurt me in the slightest.
People prefer consoles because they are less complicated to set up. A variation on my 3rd point in the list of why folks opt for consoles. You really love circular reasoning.
It's not loss of revenue, release on PC as well will increase revenue for those games but it comes at the expense of future XB1 sales.
I do understand you're having a hard time grasping the argument because you always circle back to a point I didn't make (likely on purpose as you don't have a response to my actual arguement).
The reason why future XB1 will be lost is:
- The value proposition got worse, there are less reasons to specifically get a XB1
- It shows MS is not prioritizing the XB1
- Potential customers of the XB1 who also have a PC may opt to upgrade the PC rather than get a XB1
- Ill will generated by the shift in MS priotities
Again, you're circling back to a point that is not mine. My actual point is that MS is opting for the extra money from selling the games on PC over the potential revenue generated by the XB1 sales they may lose. The lose in future XB1 sales is broader than you specific example and you insist that is the only demographic they will lose. There is a term for that sort of debating, straw manning. You can't address the broader point so you make up a easier point for you to talk about. Usually a sign your point may be weaker than you suspect.
As I stated, there is no methodology or details about how the data was derived and it all seems rather high. You also can't 'pick through the missing information in the graphic'. You can note it but what are you picking through if it's missing? The rest of that paragraph is you circling back to the argument you think you could win which is not one we're talking about.
The actual argument is MS has made the value proposition worse for the machine itself; which is lower their sales int he future. Making this move is a sign their priorities have shifted. My interpretation is a XB2 (XB10) won't happen. They may opt to make a successor but not one competing for the traditional game market. As I also said to others, they will try to compete with Apple/Google not Sony/Nintendo.
As I noted above in fact it does for the reasons I noted. I have a feeling you're going to circle back again because you're just that sort of person.
I think along with this move; they'll go the other way. A repackaged XBO in a slimmer packaged aimed at competing with Google and Apples TV offerings and they will exit the traditional console market.
As the move away from XB1 exclusives is a sure sign they care less about the traditional console market in their long term plans.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Yeah. It will be interesting to see what MS will do. You say it's Google/Apple territory, I still think it's against the PC giants (and mobile, if they try to build up the Windows Phone again alongside with Win10). Xten/Xtwo might just be a "Steam Box" with different kind of hardware: entry level (current Xbone), mid-tier and some Ultra Box. And with that move (or with either of these moves) they're on a different market than Sony and Nintendo.
In all honesty, if they go with the Steam Box route, Xbox brand will be done. Steam Box will burn as well. These are just hybrid PCs and hybrids are not for the core gamers. In fact hybrids are only for those tech savy hi-tech collectors who want all the new toys to play with.
Look at Ouya. Gaming history is full of these flops.
Then an enthusiastic box that has a second gpu like the surface book that works in random with the gpu in the SoC because of DX12
Yes, I actually do think that's what they'll do honestly. It makes sense imo. You have a base "xbox mini" that runs current xbox one games. Then you have "xbox core" that is your midrange (base for big titles). Then "xbox +" for that crazy GPU. Even tho I think they would just have two (don't want to sell a system that can't play base games, but they could). You could upgrade from Xbox mini to Xbox +.
It would be locked down just as the current Xbox runs W10 is.
It's not Windows 10 desktop, I mean Windows 10 Xbox. So we're in agreement.
I don't think they are leaving the console market until everyone is streaming games. There will always be a dedicated market for gaming in front of a TV (as long as TVs exist).
VincentMatts
Member
If you look at the big picture, it can absolutely negatively impact xbox console owners. Just look at the previous gen consoles for example and how many games still release on them because of that huge install base. If, for example, those Ps4/PC owners dont buy the xbox one hardware, you might possibly see less support long term for the console itself. A console that moves a lot of hardware like the 360 and ps3 did last gen get not only a lot of support, but it gets it for a long time even after the new console releases.
If people dont buy the hardware, you can see a much shorter life span. That affects the people who own it.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
You do know that PC can be plugged into a TV as easily as the console?
As I said, they will aim to compete with the Apple/Google portion of that rather than the Sony/Nintendo one. They'll have the box there but I think they're done with sinking massive R&D into a high power box and then gambling that the market will choose them.I think they will now make smaller bets and leverage what they have already to compete in the less capital intensive market. Even try and take on steam with the windows 10 store.
That's their intention as it looks like through this move. W10 Store being the priority. The XB1 now being the red headed step child.
Will they succeed? I think they'll get trounced again with their store intuitive, they is not their first attempt (it is their 3rd). They didn't get traction before.
Apple/Google have tended to out maneuver MS and they have tended to fail when competing with those 2.
Sony has currently outflanked MS this gen on the traditional gaming side and there really isn't the money on the table for MS to keep trying. In fact it's not even worth Sony's wile to compete w/ the economics of console gaming the way they are but Kazuo Hirai has a personal stake in it. Steve Balmer also was a huge supporter and he's gone now. This is why I think it's likely MS is exiting the traditional market. The power dynamics within MS isn't lining up.
They'll market it like a console. Exactly like a console. Because for all intents and purposes it will be a console.
But the wall that currently exists between developing a game for Xbox and developing a game for Windows will be torn down.
serversurfer
Member
Isn't the argument that -1 = +1, or at worst, 0?
The argument is that having nothing unique to offer in terms of software will somehow increase Bone's appeal to consumers, but I don't see how that follows.
It was mentioned that first party development avoids licensing fees and only needs to break even, but despite those advantages, a title like QB isn't viable on the Bone. I'm not sure that adding the comparatively small revenues typically generated by the PC audience takes you from, "No can do," to, "No problem," especially when you look at the existing overlap between XBox and PC; adding a PC release to an XBox game actually passes considerably fewer additional users than adding PC to a PlayStation game would. So Bone starts with an unviable audience, then tops it off with a relatively small fraction of the cheapskate market.
Sounds legit.
Edit: Oh, and to the argument that at worst, Bone will continue to be just as healthy and vibrant as it is today, just how healthy is, "Unable to sustain even first party development"?
LukasTaves
Member
If that was all Ms was trying to do I would agree. But we know it's not, they are not just bringing xbone games to Pc, they are building an unified store which xbone will access to.
You do realize there isn't much of a technical wall now and principally it's a 'wall' of expectations. PC game market expect more customization options and support for more hardware. There is also a business deal wall. Aside from that there isn't a huge barrier for moving from PS4/XB1 -> PC. Unlike the PS3 -> PC.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
So, what does the Xbone owner gain from getting into the Windows store? PC owner gets their hands on the Xbox "exclusives", but how exactly is this a good thing for the Xbone owner?
And furthermore: Why would a PC owner who has been thinking of getting an Xbone would buy an Xbone now? Are the Xbone sales going to tank beyond bad? What do you think the shareholders would think about this scenario? Wouldn't they just say "thanks, but no thanks. Get rid of it now"?
wapplew
Member
Ability to play candy crush.
they get whatever AAA games that studios decide to actually put on the windows store that wouldn't have been on Xbox One already (probably none) and a bunch of shitty phone/tablet games
Welfare
Member
Being an Xbox One owner, how is this a bad thing? I don't lose anything from this.
Cross play is the very first thing I can come up with PC players being able to get XB1 games.
the topic in question isn't if its a bad thing, the question is if its a good thing (or a great thing as the title suggests)
AmaterasuOni
Banned
I think the topic is: Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners.
Welfare
Member
They can now have a snake clone on the XB1?
Facebook/Linked in on one more device?
Netflix but from a different store?
One more adware supported flappy bird clone?
Steverulez
Member
More potential to make money on their games, more chances of sequels etc, more games for me, more partnerships and (again) more games.
I think its a positive step and could help improve the changes of their upcoming line-up new IPs get sequels and be franchises, which is what I want.
I think the problem with that stance is it assumes a lot of 'could's. They could make more money and put that into games, they could form more partner ships, they could make more games. But there is nothing stopping them from doing that now. MS is not short of capital.
It'd be like saying we should all but the spiderman reboot Bluray because the money could go into making more first party exclusives for the vtia. They could, but that's not how the business worked before. Why would it now work like this?
wapplew
Member
You lose nothing, but potential market growth of your console of choice will be slower which will result lesser support/shorter circle.
No some people prefer consoles because they are easy to set up. Some people prefer them because they are cheap entry points. Some people prefer them because they are invested in the ecosystem. Some people prefer them because that how they play with friends and families. Some prefer them because they are easy to travel with. Some people prefer them because they prefer disc based media and rentals.
There are plenty of reasons that people game on consoles over PC that you are choosing to ignore.
Frankly thses generalizations are simply unbecoming of someone in your profession.
vcc said:
Yes, It's the loss of an Xbox sale, to a relatively tiny group of potential Xbox customers who were never going to add significantly to the bottom line because THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF BUYING MULTIPLATS ON XBOX.
So they are converting that customer to a Windows customer, where they'll get more revenue from the digital sale of exclusive games, and increase their customer base w/o negatively impacting the buying potential of their console base.
vcc said:
The funny thing is, you are the one failing to see the broader point. You are making assumption about the buying tendencies of both PC enthusiasts and console enthusiasts that simply aren't true in any capacity.
You are spouting nonsense about how serving PC enthusiasts on their hardware of choice will negatively impact MS's licensing revenue.
You are spouting nonsense about why people who prefer consoles actually prefer consoles.
You are spouting nonsense suggesting that MS is shifting focus away from console even though all signs point to them adding-on to the potential consumers base, not trading.
vcc said:
Smh man, your the analyst. And you took an graph that is obviously lacking the detail to support your opinion, and suggested that it supports your opinion. In doing so, you showed a massive lack of understanding of he gaming market.
vcc said:
No the actually argument is about the effect that this revelation has on Xbox owners. Choosing not to try to push console sales onto gamers who prefer to play PCs and instead attempting to meet them where they live, does not indicate a shift away from consoles altogether... Not to a reasonable person. Priorities haven't 'shifted'. Their strategy has expanded: there is no indication that they value the selling games to the PC market OVER selling games, services, and collecting licensing revenues from the console market. No idication whatsoever.
vcc said:
Yeah I'm the one circling.
And the irony of it all is that the next Xbox console will essentially be a PC that is 'easy to set up'
inpHilltr8r
Member
THOUGHT CRIME DETECTED
Welfare
Member
Less support from who? Surely not 3rd party publishers, because that is literal crazy talk.
Steverulez
Member
Im not sure comparing sales of the Spiderman reboot blu-ray will directly affect Sony Computer Entertainment in the same way people buying Quantum Break on Windows 10 will directly affect the chances of Quantum Break 2.
I also didn't say MS were short of partnerships, games or money. They are focusing on their first-party stuff though, so their games being more successful vs being less successful, I'm confident they will keep investing more and make these new games franchises, nothing can save the Vita at this point - not even Spiderman reboot blu-rays
RIP
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. amrite?
I'll refrain from casting aspersions on your character further.
We'll see. Year over year sales will be pretty indicative.
Spare me.
That second point can't be stressed enough.
The argument is 2 markets is worse than 1 market because the other 1 market will "destroy" the first market...that's what people are saying. I just don't believe it.
1 guy, selling the same thing in 2 markets is always better than 1 guy selling the one thing in 1 market. Why? He has more chances to make money so he can sell more things.
Let's look at RoTR. MS thought the "exclusive" would do better for their platform. In some ways it did but in other ways, it didn't. Not everyone bought an Xbox One for RoTR. Some waited for PC and others are waiting for PS4. Now what's hurting RoTR right now...its sales? Why? Because it's not in as many places as it could be. If SE had more sales initially, they would most likely (obviously this is an assumption) be in a position where keep making TR or make something else would be viable.
This is the same thinking. If MS can maximize their profits as much as possible by going to other users on other platforms but still in a controlled manner (they get all the monies), they would do that. That will help them poor more money into the games that will be released on both platforms. Hence why it is better for Xbox owners...you get games.
But I can imagine you and others won't see it that way and think that it means the end of the console and we'll continue this dance between the dragon and the phoenix again.
Making money on QB will mean QB2 is more likely. Putting it on the w10 store is not a clear upside for the XB1. It's arguably a shift in priority away from the XB1.
They're focusing on the pure profit of QB and the other games over the future of the XB1 as well as the success of the W10 store over the XB1. It's a sign of a shift in priorities.
It's a very big stretch to say 'thus good for the XB1'. At the very best it's neutral. At the very worst this is a sign there will not be a XB2 (or XB10 because MS hates sequential numbering).
are you sure that wall actually exists? seems to me that it's pretty easy these days to make games for both PC and Xbox One, especially this gen.
not saying there is no work involved, but it's more like a small hump to hop over than a huge wall
Steverulez
Member
My Xbox One version looks like it has had the amount of effort I would want put into it (based on what I can see so far), MS are also going to plaster the Xbox One version all over their TV ads etc, its in addition to Xbox One not instead of.
Clearly MS don't feel there is a significant cross-over between the two that one would tank the other, I think looking at how this generation has gone that much is pretty obvious too
They're trying to create an ecosystem and make sure Xbox fits properly into the organisation, if anything Xbox not doing whatever the hell it wants shows it fits their vision, they aren't going to ditch the console under the TV, theres plenty of money to be made with both and they want to be everywhere.
As an Xbox One owner, this move helping me get sequels to games I want - which will be playable on Xbox One or whatever the next console is called, I think that is a good move for my console. As opposed to Alan Wake, Ryse and Sunset Overdrive - none of which have had sequels.
As long as MS keep putting the right amount of effort in to sell their console, keep the games coming (from both first and third parties), the price competitive and everything else, I think it is making more effort to improve their presence on PC which they have woefully neglected rather than changing priority away from the console. They've not necessarily been particularly good at doing more than one thing at once but if they are all in on it then it could work out well for them, I think that benefits me too
Likely because that's not how the market has ever worked and when the defense of what they're doing come out of your mouths it just seem inexplicable why someone would think that.
Portions of how the market worked before can change, assumptions about it can be wrong. But there is no reason to think what you and the other propose will happen and we have past examples of the opposite happening in similar but not exactly the same circumstance.
TR did terrible, because the number of people who own XB1 and want the game wasn't that big and it's over all life time sales will be depressed because the nadar of it's marketing hit when it was only available in one place. The re-release on other platforms can't capitalize on the big initial marketing push. I hear it did okay on PC and may do okay on PS4 but we won't know till later. It likely would have sold more if it hit all platforms. But it did sell some number of XB1 for being a exclusives. So while it was bad for TR:RotTR it was slightly good for the XB1.
For QB, having it on more platforms will be good for it's over all sales but as TR:RotR compelled some TR fans to get a XB1; having QB on the PC will mean some number of people will not get a XB1 for it. I don't think this population is very large but this move benefits QB and the w10 store and some part of that is at the expense of the XB1.
What's good for those games aren't necessarily goof for the XB1.
Does more money made make a case to make more games. Yes. But lack of exclusive also makes the case not to be on the XB1 platform. So you get both. Remedy will be able to make another game. The XB1 will look like a worse console to own.
wapplew
Member
From third party stand point, 2 market is better than one, the more the merrier, because they only worry about the games.
A platform holder on the other hand, need to think about increase the value of your hardware.
Some think this will decrease the value of said hardware, hence decrease future hardware sale.
Some think first party software sale increase overweight the lost, some think not. So we dancing again.
We'll see about the marketing. A lot of publishers have been caught putting the PC version in the marketing for the console version.
As for cross-over; it's not the exact overlap in the zen diagram that will be the issue but consumer perception. If the console platform holder doesn't have enough confidence in their console to release a exclusive then maybe you don't want that one.
Consoles aren't just free extra money. They are a enormous expense to R&D. Even so they won't abruptly drop the XB1. But this move sure looks like they're edging away slowly. As history indicates there is some money there but ROI is poor. OXB was a money pit, 360 took years to turn a profit as a whole, XB1 has under performed their expectations. Being #2 is drastically less profitable and it takes a enormous amount of money to push it out the door.
What it looks like to me is that they want to make the W10 store successful. They are okay with pushing it at the expense of the XB1 because it has already failed.
What sells Xbox Ones as a gaming machine? Games. Having games from 3rd parties and having 1st party games. Focusing on QB (for example as you said) helps sell the game, and for that, it helps Xbox One because that's what helps sell it. Games. So selling QB, in more markets, means more potential sales, which means it helps sell the game, which helps the Xbox One console (and it helps the Windows Store obviously). Guess what, their priority that has shifted (as you said) still helps the Xbox One.
There are still "special" things that programmers have to code for, it's easier than last gen but it's still more of a hassle. What the next Xbox will most likely do is have it where your difference in code between xbox and pc is the amount of power you have and the devices connected to it. That's always been the goal. Some resolution locking and framerate locking but that may be it.
Say your a developer, and you currently had the resources to make just 1 version of a game. The idea that getting it onto a PC storefront would instantly mean getting it onto a popular console has to be attractive, I would imagine.
Edit:
@vcc oh so the xb1 is a failure huh? This analysis just keeps getting less and less bias
That's what MS is banking on. Can't wait for //build/.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Yeah, wouldn't that be attractive for pubs like WB with historically bad PC port handling? Imagine if they could have just put out a competent version of MKX on PC that was essentially the Xbox version with possible crossplay.
For the reasons I said: it's good for remedy, good for the w10 store, good for QB as a franchise if they choose to go that way.
It's a absurd leap of logic to say it's good for the XB1 as all of the above come at the expense of the XB1's future.
It has been the goal and the XB side has been easier for this than the PC side than PS or Nintendo. However the technical hurdles aren't huge right now. Many middle ware/engines options allow you to port very easily. Even the PS4 -> PC path isn't that challenging. All it takes is some money and time and it's never been cheaper.
The bigger hurdles are conceptual. A PC game has a set of expectations to meet. Need to run on a variety of CPU/GPU combinations as well as at least 3 operating systems and have more customization options. Games made with KB/Mouse may not map to a controller (Starcraft). Any particular scene needs to be less complicated so it can fit within a consoles more limited resources so certain types of things may not work well or take effort to iron out the low performance areas. etc...
It's already cheap to do it the technical part. The rest is about where the games initial focus was. PC-only games are now rare. Port it to everything is already common. So why would 'removing the barrier' be significant? The money is already on the Console side so many games like fallout 4 are already designed with consoles in mind.
Being #2 is already a failure. MS was in it to own it. #2 is much less money for the resources they invested. Why do you think they had a change in leadership? Because it succeeded?
Bitch Pudding
Member
PeterLegend
Member
Might as well bring halo, gears and forza to pc lol. Sell more games is the goal based on the thread title. Not so much the hardware...