MilkyJoe
Member
I've not come across that term for it, but it's bang on the money. Why someone gives a second thought to who else can play their games is, frankly, a bit bonkers.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Polygon: Xbox Scorpio will be a ~6 TFLOP system (v PS4K's 4.14), unveil soon, Fall 17
- Thread starter BUNTING1243
- Start date
I've not come across that term for it, but it's bang on the money. Why someone gives a second thought to who else can play their games is, frankly, a bit bonkers.
I don't get this logic. He cut down most of Xbox Europe because Xbox has never done well in Europe. These type of movies help the division not hurt it.
Hockeymac18
Member
I could see them having XBOX Live on the PC just being free monthly games, discounts, and maybe access to dedicated servers (for some games). But I cannot see MP ever going behind the paywall on PC. It would be disaster, and MS (as much as people don't give them credit) at least understand this. Phil Spencer has even officially commented on that: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2893...es-online-and-console-owners-are-furious.html
I can even see them dropping the MP paywall on console - but I'm not sure if they would now that PS+ put MP behind the paywall, too.
I think you are reading this the wrong way - I don't care about "console wars" or "winning" them.
What I'm saying is that if every PC that has the Xbox app is effectively an Xbox, then HOW does Microsoft monetize that when they know PC players aren't buying Xbox Gold for MP?
And the solution I'm considering is taking the focus off of MP and on the free games - which is the only thing that might sway PC purchase.
So do you think the Microsoft trying to make more money by driving PC purchase of Gold subscriptions is all that crazy?
Hockeymac18
Member
That, along with discounts and dedicated servers (when available) could be incentives as well. Sure it might not sell a ton on PC, but some people would maintain a PC Xbox Live membership with some of those features (especially if the Live sub works on XB1, too). That'd be revenue they aren't getting now.
Obscuritas
Member
Not even a chance. Maybe just characters/account will be transferable in crossplatform games.
Bitch Pudding
Member
I do, but I am not someone...
Okay, seriously. If you're not into PC gaming, it doesn't matter. But if you are, a gaming PC is a nice substitute for playing XBOX (eco-system) exclusive games. I have no idea how big the effect is, but MS either isn't worried or they take the loss with their eyes open to boost their Windows 10 platform.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Or maybe they could get downloaded games to be unlocked by dropping in your PS4 disc as verification of ownership - a bit like BC currently works with discs.
I'm not really serious.
Or am I?
I'm not.
CrimsonEclipse
Member
Please stop making sense, hurting muh brain .
Purists will care. It's always the loudest minority that gets the masses going.
Personally I think you are dead right, it makes no impact to me as a gamer on either platform.
...Scatter...
Banned
All of them? LOL
VincentMatts
Member
Hell, they complain when it isnt on PC and find a reason to complain when it is. They always complain.
Hell, since the whole shift MS has made with their games and putting them on W10, I sold my Xbox and will now stick to just PC and PS4. So yeah, they are and will lose Xbox hardware sales, but in the end, those people will be on W10 spending time and money on their platform so I am sure they don't care in the end. Especially if things are just going to merge and future Xbox is just a modular pc or something.
killer rin
Member
If Microsoft were to go down this route, I could see them expanding it by making Xbox Live some sort of EA Access clone which handles any game Microsoft has personally published
That's the point. He cares about products doing well. He cares about the profitability of the division not eating costs and bleeding money. It was a response to this
To me, the one way they could do free mp and have a good deal for gold is this.
Monthly Games with Gold
Weekly Deals with Gold
1 AAA Microsoft IP for free that Microsoft sets.
That last part is the thing that switches with multiplayer. So lets say ReCore was their big AAA game that they want to sell or get off the ground (like new IP type of thing). They would give that game away for "free" with the subscription. So that's one way to get gamers into a game. Or make it Sea of Thieves...that games would could sell DLC and microtransactions to really get the "real money" from the investment...but it would make sure that a good number of gamers get the game. It would be a reason for people to get Live as it would literally be 4 games a month plus 1 AAA title by MS. I think that would be a good value on the console side.
On the PC side, they could do the same thing. The value it presents is really good. What GWG and PS+ are basically Netflix subscriptions. In order to get people into it the sub, you need to have content. Just like EA Vault. That's good stuff. I do think that MS figures it out though.
VincentMatts
Member
Can someone explain what exactly the teraflops mean? 4TF, 6 TF its all Chinese to me.
MilkyJoe
Member
Just think horse power in a car
Do people actually think they will drop MP paywall for console?
I don't think they will but it'd help their situation and if they are putting Halo, Gears etc on PC it's going to put them in a difficult situation and yo know everyone is going to be pissed off that console is paying and PC isn't for the same servers, games, etc.
I would keep my subscription for sure, since I think GWG and stuff is worth it, but multiplayer being behind the paywall is a joke and always has been. Now MS themselves are making it free on PC they have to do something on consoles because I'm pretty pissed off about it and I'd actually keep my sub, it's the principle. Surely they can't expect people to continue paying while they give it to PC for free and be happy about it? If they start announcing all these games for PC and give nothing back to console people it's going to bring them a lot of hate, I can already see it now.
There's also those comments by Phil where he said he'd like to do PC GWG, once they announce that and there's no real differences between PC and Xbox other than the multiplayer paywall which is going to bring even more hate to MS from console people.
It'd help move consoles though that's for sure, so it'd help in the short term but is it really worth it as a long term move? You can add nearly incentive under the sun and people still wouldn't pay for it because a lot of people simply don't give a shit about the free games. Only way you could get people to pay for XBL with MP being free is by allowing them to pick any game of their choosing per subscription, released or unreleased, but then those people will just pick CoD/FIFA, etc.
Idk.. I don't think they'd actually do it but I do think they have to give console people a bone somewhere.
I don't think they will but it'd help their situation and if they are putting Halo, Gears etc on PC it's going to put them in a difficult situation and yo know everyone is going to be pissed off that console is paying and PC isn't for the same servers, games, etc.
I would keep my subscription for sure, since I think GWG and stuff is worth it, but multiplayer being behind the paywall is a joke and always has been. Now MS themselves are making it free on PC they have to do something on consoles because I'm pretty pissed off about it and I'd actually keep my sub, it's the principle. Surely they can't expect people to continue paying while they give it to PC for free and be happy about it? If they start announcing all these games for PC and give nothing back to console people it's going to bring them a lot of hate, I can already see it now.
There's also those comments by Phil where he said he'd like to do PC GWG, once they announce that and there's no real differences between PC and Xbox other than the multiplayer paywall which is going to bring even more hate to MS from console people.
It'd help move consoles though that's for sure, so it'd help in the short term but is it really worth it as a long term move? You can add nearly incentive under the sun and people still wouldn't pay for it because a lot of people simply don't give a shit about the free games. Only way you could get people to pay for XBL with MP being free is by allowing them to pick any game of their choosing per subscription, released or unreleased, but then those people will just pick CoD/FIFA, etc.
Idk.. I don't think they'd actually do it but I do think they have to give console people a bone somewhere.
VincentMatts
Member
lol pretty simple actually.
MilkyJoe
Member
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Xbox has more traction control, yo.
crab rangoon
Banned
What stops MS from letting users convert steam games to UWA's? They could let users do this for their existing steam catalogue through, say, year end 2016. That way they don't really miss out on much because the utterly vast majority of those games in existing libraries were already purchased anyhow. Sure, they may miss out on game royalties in the interim, but it may be worth it if it means bringing PC gamers over to their storefront. Then, come 2017, MS can just mandate that any Windows/Xbox game released from there on out be UWP-based.
What devs get:
1) Make one version of their game (as if it were a standard PC sku), convert it to UWP and deploy on Xbox/PC. So simpler, less testing required, less to juggle.
2) Much larger potential userbase for their games/apps/bots.
What MS gets:
1) A suddenly very compelling marketplace/storefront for both console and PC owners.
2) Potentially a huge userbase boost for their own products as well as their base for collecting royalties via their storefront.
3) A lock on the unified, broader app platform that will be extremely difficult to compete with going forward.
4) The above is important if MS's goal of moving games to the cloud is still a thing (as it was in the 2010 leak). They seem likely to aim for an OnLive model, except they also sell the hardware. If they can avoid OnLive's mistakes (publisher support and a weak infrastructure) it may work, GAF's cloud cynicism be damned.
5) For anyone not interested or unable to jump into a cloud streaming service, MS can keep releasing hardware upgrades every several yrs. Maybe that is their plan with Scorpio and the rumored streaming device. Scorpio is said to be ab out 4 times the power of the X1; the Azure/XBL Cloud compute allotment was said to be equivalent to 4 X1's in computing power. What if this isn't a coincidence?
What gamers get:
1) PC gamers get to play Xbox games, maybe even including BC titles at some point.
2) Xbox gamers get to play PC games, maybe even including existing PC software.
3) A wide range of devices, all seen through software as if they were different Windows PC setups in a sense, that consumers can pick from to suit their needs.
4) Maybe more flexibility in pricing models. There's potential for MS to offer a subsidized high end model (Scorpio) akin to how they subsidized things late in 360's life. Back then it was done as a trial and iirc they planned on doing that for X1's launch but changed plans. This would be a payment model eerily similar to the cell phone market Phil Spencer seeks to imitate.
5) MS may finally be interested in launching their Family Share feature they had prior to X1 launch. Would be great for consumers for the obvious reasons.
6) A unified platform for gaming/apps/bots that lets PC gamers play against Xbox gamers for a much wider pool of XBL users.
What devs get:
1) Make one version of their game (as if it were a standard PC sku), convert it to UWP and deploy on Xbox/PC. So simpler, less testing required, less to juggle.
2) Much larger potential userbase for their games/apps/bots.
What MS gets:
1) A suddenly very compelling marketplace/storefront for both console and PC owners.
2) Potentially a huge userbase boost for their own products as well as their base for collecting royalties via their storefront.
3) A lock on the unified, broader app platform that will be extremely difficult to compete with going forward.
4) The above is important if MS's goal of moving games to the cloud is still a thing (as it was in the 2010 leak). They seem likely to aim for an OnLive model, except they also sell the hardware. If they can avoid OnLive's mistakes (publisher support and a weak infrastructure) it may work, GAF's cloud cynicism be damned.
5) For anyone not interested or unable to jump into a cloud streaming service, MS can keep releasing hardware upgrades every several yrs. Maybe that is their plan with Scorpio and the rumored streaming device. Scorpio is said to be ab out 4 times the power of the X1; the Azure/XBL Cloud compute allotment was said to be equivalent to 4 X1's in computing power. What if this isn't a coincidence?
What gamers get:
1) PC gamers get to play Xbox games, maybe even including BC titles at some point.
2) Xbox gamers get to play PC games, maybe even including existing PC software.
3) A wide range of devices, all seen through software as if they were different Windows PC setups in a sense, that consumers can pick from to suit their needs.
4) Maybe more flexibility in pricing models. There's potential for MS to offer a subsidized high end model (Scorpio) akin to how they subsidized things late in 360's life. Back then it was done as a trial and iirc they planned on doing that for X1's launch but changed plans. This would be a payment model eerily similar to the cell phone market Phil Spencer seeks to imitate.
5) MS may finally be interested in launching their Family Share feature they had prior to X1 launch. Would be great for consumers for the obvious reasons.
6) A unified platform for gaming/apps/bots that lets PC gamers play against Xbox gamers for a much wider pool of XBL users.
VincentMatts
Member
If no sun roof then screw that im out.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Unless you follow Porsche driver logic, after which Porsche horsepower counts twice...
It's not that uncommon, actually, Nivida card owners tell the same tale.
VincentMatts
Member
Aaaaaand im confused again.
Bitch Pudding
Member
.
MilkyJoe
Member
It's not the same as the PS4 because there are a number of exclusive franchises that make the Playstation brand unique and there will be more. Aside from that the multi-platform games have been better on PS4 for 3 years already. I primarily use my computers for work, but I do play some games on them, I might play a few more XBox based games, but it's not nearly the same number as PS4 or if I were an Xbox console gamer.
What I look at is people that are console gamers are console gamers. With all of the XBox games going to Windows the only viable console with exclusive content is going to be Playstation (that's if NX is primarily a software only platform which seems likely) and that's probably where half to three quarters of the XBone players are going to be headed with half of what's left of that userbase sticking to consoles and the other half choosing to game strictly on PC...that's a very splintered small market created by MS' own hand. A small market splintered is a small market a lot of devs aren't going to want to have to deal with.
Hockeymac18
Member
I'm sorry, but I don't follow this logic. Do you really think MS releasing their games (Halo, for instance) on PC would drive traditional Xbox gamers to Playstation? Why would a typical console gamer even care if he/she has no interest in PC gaming? If that person games on Xbox because they want to play MS games (again, Halo, for instance), why would they say "damn, that game is on PC now? Guess it's time I get a Playstation!!). Help me understand your argument.
Or maybe I'm misreading what you're saying (my apologies, if so).
CalamityPixel
Member
The sales of Halo 5 don't match anywhere near the 20million plus userbase.
I doubt people are gonna leave Xbox cause their games are available on another Windows 10 platform.
There is no 'convert to uwa' button. It's a totally different build, without an executable. The developers would have to create new versions.
Hockeymac18
Member
That's what I'm thinking, too.
exclusives aren't as important as you think they are. people will just play the games they like on the platform most convenient to them. they don't care if a game is exclusive or not
liking a game less because its no longer exclusive is absurd
SneakersSO
Member
From a consumer stand-point, once the Helix intiative gets made official at E3 (all 1st party published MS games are now going to launch day & date on PC as well as Xbox), I do feel that one of the incentives that pushed people towards getting an Xbox hardware does become somewhat dulled. However, for MS, this makes way more sense in the grander scheme of their business.
However, for things like Scorpio, it does become somewhat of a factor. The truth is, we've never had a console where it didn't have a form of an exclusive library to help sell it. The Xbox platform is going to be the first to attempt this, and there is obviously a ton of risk involved. It also allows people an opportunity to join or become a part of the Xbox platform without having to actually own an Xbox, which for MS is way bigger of an opportunity.
So no, I don't think this causes people to leave the Xbox platform, so much that it allows them a chance to abandon the hardware side of Xbox while still maintaining their software portfolio that they have established without having to stay on Xbox hardware when the time to upgrade comes. Now that both hardware manufacturers are going to be asking users to buy into the iterative model, it does create an opportunity for users to leave the Xbox hardware without losing anything.
Okay putting on my tin foil hat:
Major Nelson was discussing the Halo 5 Turbo Warzone mode on "This Week on Xbox" which came out today. Turbo Warzone means you get the REQ levels much faster, and as he was explaining it how fast you get the REQ levels he said "time to Scorpion is very fast", drawing a parallel to "time to kill". But why did he say Scorpion? He could have used any other vehicle or weapon that can be unlocked with REQ levels.
I'll leave my hat on for now.
Major Nelson was discussing the Halo 5 Turbo Warzone mode on "This Week on Xbox" which came out today. Turbo Warzone means you get the REQ levels much faster, and as he was explaining it how fast you get the REQ levels he said "time to Scorpion is very fast", drawing a parallel to "time to kill". But why did he say Scorpion? He could have used any other vehicle or weapon that can be unlocked with REQ levels.
I'll leave my hat on for now.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Yup. Exact quote was "Time to Scorpion is very short indeed." He's gotta be teasing us.
ATOMICJORGE
Member
Good point
kingwingin
Member
bruh! Here we go!
CalamityPixel
Member
Oh my.
crab rangoon
Banned
Button?...no (not quite). There IS a converter program though. MS used it to convert a steam version of Witcher 3 to UWP for Build recently. I dunno how long that took, but from what I can tell apps are converted literally in minutes as an essentially one step process.
I agree that the hardware sales for Scorpio will be affected by users being able to be on PC and being able to stay on Xbox One as features of the platform. Software sales will be king. The sales numbers of the console won't be the determining factor of success for Xbox as it would for Sony (to a certain extent). It's the amount of active users buying software and subscriptions. I believe Microsoft can make a powerful product just as a marketing tool and for a profit but it's not the main thing.
Ha.
Hockeymac18
Member
Here's what I'm trying to say though (which was a response to what the poster that I responded to was saying, I think): Xbox games releasing on PC aren't going to make someone who was a traditional Xbox console (keyword here) gamer suddenly switch to Playstation. If the Xbox gamer is a console gamer and has little/no interest in PC gaming, why would he/she care if the game exists somewhere else? They can still play the same games just as before...
Now, if the argument is about someone who has an interest in PC gaming? Of course, those users will have less of an incentive to buy the console - they might even skip all future Xbox consoles. And I think that's a good thing for consumers (and in an odd way, it could be a good thing for MS if they release the games well and create a good PC ecosystem). But that's not the group of users that I was talking about.
If they are actually revealing or saying anything about Scorpio at E3, that thing has to be close, can't be one year out. It's gotta be this fall or next spring at the latest.
Hype intensifies!!!
wapplew
Member
Since software sales is king, they should release MS studio games on PS4 and NX too, lure those uses into "ecosystem" and lock them down.
Plenty of people have pcs that can run tomorrow's xbox games at some capacity. Bringing the games to pc will have a huge influence on potential buyers, lol.
SneakersSO
Member
At that point, the question becomes 'What is the goal of this box?". If its just to maintain market presence for the brand due to how its been observed in the past, then thats one thing. I think that works out for everyone involved really, especially since its clear MS wants to do this market shift for how the business of Xbox gets conducted.
So as long as they are going into this thing knowing full well that they may very well take a wash on the hardware sales, but that they've established a wide enough net for gamers that they're going to grow their market userbase for potential software sales, thats one thing. However, if they are investing in this machine & its success being a core goal for Xbox going forward, then I think they need to stop & have a realignment of goals.
For starters, I just don't see either the Neo OR the Scorpio taking off in any major way on the market for the first year of their respective availability, if ever. Just observing the marketshare retraction that has definitely occurred this generation due to a variety of factors (Nintendo shitting the bed, mobile eating into genres that were normally console focused, etc.) I do believe that a console can still manage to sell up to 10 million units a year WW. I don't see Neo or Scorpio doing that. 5 million in their first year on the market (respectively)? Yeah, maybe, but thats a big if.
One thing I will say about Sony's approach with the Neo - they are obviously going to use a 4K angle to help market the Neo, and I do feel this is important. I think what will help these iterative models gain ground is a trojan horse of sorts. For Neo, its trying to cross-sell to the 4K TV market who are currently content strapped. If Scorpio is truly going to show up a year late, then they are going to need their own marketing trojan horse, and I dunno if raw power is a good enough selling point.
Yep. With the amount of teasing etc, it has to be at E3.
And if it's at this E3 it has to be coming out this year.
Holy shit, it's happening isn't it?
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
This PC thing has always been a myth. I know numerous gamers with more than capable gaming PCs who still choose console over PC. The percentage of PC gamers who actively choose to play on PC over console when given the choice is tiny outside GAF. It's the reason console versions outsell PC versions consistently, it's the reason many developers pay little care to PC versions of games. It's behind the 2 consoles in importance.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
"Don't read too much into it"