My point is that Magnus can serve as Microsoft's first real step toward pulling their Xbox userbase into their own storefront — giving them an instant base of at least 10 million users. From there, they could gradually expand that audience and use their deep PC and Windows integration to directly counter both the Steam ecosystem and the Epic Games Store.
Microsoft isn't just launching hardware; they're positioning themselves to reshape the PC market in a way only they can. With control over Windows, OS-level optimization advantages, and a huge pre-existing ecosystem, Magnus could become the foundation for a long-term storefront strategy that yields major returns.
And honestly, I wouldn't put it past them to use some very "creative" or cunning practices to undermine the competition — something far easier for them when they control the entire Windows operating system layer.
This won't disrupt the market overnight, but over a decade, it could evolve into a serious challenge to today's dominant platforms. Ignoring this would be a mistake.
Again tho, they can't use those very "creative" or cunning practices to undermine competition without risking a major lawsuit from said competitors, and rightfully so.
It'd be a repeat of the anticompetitive practices they were sued for in the '90s, only this time even worst since MS would knowingly be repeating it while already having gone through the ringer before and precedent being long established.
I didn't know how to use the multi-quote function, but I agree with you here. As I mentioned in my latest comment, Microsoft controlling the Windows OS layer can absolutely become a nightmare scenario for Valve and the whole Steam ecosystem. And honestly, I wouldn't put it past them to use some shady or subtle tactics to give their upcoming PC storefront an edge — it's much easier for them to do that on Windows than it is to fight Sony head-to-head in the console space.
In the end, though, this feels like the logical evolution for Xbox. It's a direction they should have moved toward far earlier, and Magnus might finally be the step that shifts their strategy into a place where their strengths actually matter.
In terms of MS turning Xbox into a PC gaming device, yeah, that's a logical conclusion for them in terms of gaming hardware. Can argue they should've done that with the OG Xbox but between the FM Towns Marty, Amiga CD32, and Apple Bandai Pippin I can understand why they decided against the idea at the time. Every single one of those failed terribly, so confidence was shaken.
But in terms of MS's strategy here becoming a "major threat" for Valve....I genuinely do not see it. Valve understand the PC gaming market better than Microsoft, and they have the much healthier brand name in PC gaming by miles. You can't simply buy that type of brand power and goodwill; it has to be earned, and Microsoft are losing already depleting goodwill in real time with the deterioration of Windows 11 and their rampant AI push.
I'm not saying they don't have any advantages, because they do, but I'm focusing on real & fair advantages like their 25 years of console hardware design knowledge, marketing, and global distribution with retail chains. Thing Valve don't really have, especially in the case of the latter two, and where they'd need to partner even more strongly with OEMs like Lenovo to make up the difference (and increase volume of system production).
Exactly this. They can't compete in the console market, but they have the Windows users. All they have to do is find a way to convince people to use their store and ecosystem.
Of course, for that, they have to offer more. My bet is that MS will make Windows have a proper console mode that turns off all the shit no one needs and gives most resources to the game. They'll then be able to offer native integration with the OS through their store, and I bet they'll push hard to monetize there. This will end up being a double win that will cut the cost (Xbox will become focused on software only, and tied to Windows) while giving them access to a massive user base.
It's going to be a gamble, but it has potential.
If MS do that for their store then they will have to do it for competing stores/launchers too. Or at least provide the APIs for the owners of those platforms to implement similar (exactly or close enough) navigation features in their own launchers, else it could be ruled as an anticompetitive practice.
And that's ultimately MS's biggest challenge in trying to do this whole Xbox PC/console thing and make Windows "the best place to play". Since they own the whole stack of the OS, the kernel, and the APIs, and have already both shown in the past they
HAVE used that control to strangle competitors with anticompetitive practices
AND been sued by the government for such, then a precedent already exists for companies like Valve, GOG, Epic etc. to utilize against MS in court if they so feel to do it.
That's the double-edged sword for MS due to the ownership of Windows and its massive market share: anything they try doing to make their storefront and gaming UI stand out against competitors which is based on features derived from specific code or access privileges only MS have, will be challenged in court over it. The same could potentially be the case if they try, say, offer new 1P releases at 50% off for Game Pass subs at a certain tier on the Microsoft Store using the Xbox FSE, because that'd be MS leveraging a chain of vertical integration that competitors simply cannot offer.
If their only option to matching MS's offer would be integrating Game Pass into their own storefronts, then they can challenge based on the notion that there is nothing inherently special to Game Pass as a service requiring them to integrate it into their storefronts to offer competitive features, outside of proprietary API code that MS refuse to provide to other Windows app developers (to create an artificial advantage for one of their own products/services in return).
) You might have intended it as rhetorical, but it reads as a simple question -- and not a bad question at all, really. Many arguments can be avoided simply by defining terms.
