Support NeoGAF

[Astray]

I seriously think they would make a bigger profit without having to worry about hardware at all. What's the hold up?

Not necessarily, cutting console might reduce costs, but then they're stuck with a lot of studios that weren't bought up by other AAA publishers like Double Fine or Compulsion or Ninja Theory.. Those studios were largely left alone for a reason: Their games are largely attempting to do something artistic, and thus don't sell.

Those studios will now have to re-compete with the larger console ecosystem once again, instead of being the darlings of a bespoke 1st party line-up that's meant to sell consoles based on overall value. If they don't adapt, we will see the mother of all studio bloodbaths.

I don't think something like South of Midnight would do even remotely well on Playstation, and Alan Wake 2 just showed us that making a more auteur and complex installment in a cult favorite series isn't a guarantee of success.

 

[Crayon]

There were several growth milestones they were expecting to hit before 2027 and outside of the ones they hit thanks to the boost Covid/pandemic gave them and everyone else, they have yet to hit any of them, and are churning around the same number of users, more or less. They also massively overshot how much they expected to invest in the division. Again - Covid boost to GP really blinded them on how well the service was actually doing.

To put it bluntly, when Nadella removed GP growth off of his KPIs, a whole heck of a lot changed at Xbox and Microsoft gaming.

 

[SneakersSO]

Not necessarily, cutting console might reduce costs, but then they're stuck with a lot of studios that weren't bought up by other AAA publishers like Double Fine or Compulsion or Ninja Theory.. Those studios were largely left alone for a reason: Their games are largely attempting to do something artistic, and thus don't sell.

Those studios will now have to re-compete with the larger console ecosystem once again, instead of being the darlings of a bespoke 1st party line-up that's meant to sell consoles based on overall value. If they don't adapt, we will see the mother of all studio bloodbaths.

I don't think something like South of Midnight would do even remotely well on Playstation, and Alan Wake 2 just showed us that making a more auteur and complex installment in a cult favorite series isn't a guarantee of success.

Then that begs the question - why were those studios purchased? If their output shouldn't be expected to sell, then why would anyone think that same output should be a compelling reason to move consoles?

I do think folks are underestimating just how valuable the increased exposure with wider releases might yield for a variety of different growth vectors for Microsoft in general, whether thats getting more users overall on Azure-backed games, to users in other ecos being exposed to that output and then opting to get an Xbox as a means of gaining access to the GP service.

Not to mention - if MS' is truly invested in maintaining and growing their current revenue levels, then closing studios would merely run counter to that. Again, noting that the studios we're talking about are not the big revenue earners in general. Fact remains though that, if the goal in buying all these studios was to somehow grow the Xbox console business, then they absolutely, unequivocally failed in this regard. They are doing worse than X1 now by a notable margin.

 

[Astray]

Then that begs the question - why were those studios purchased? If their output shouldn't be expected to sell, then why would anyone think that same output should be a compelling reason to move consoles?

I think they were the only studios that were willing to sell to Xbox. Just because you are offering money doesn't mean the other party has to accept your offer.

The only studio that I would consider to be a good get is Obsidian, a very solid studio with experience in making a variety of different games.

The rest have a lot of caveats attached imo.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sony benefits on the MS going 3P scenario:

• PS would get (maybe temporary) monopoly on high end home consoles, as Switch had with portables this gen. Meaning, the PS userbase would grow due to getting an important part of the formerly XB userbase.
• PS would get all future MS games. Not only Mojang, Zenimax and ABK, also the MGS ones like Fable, Halo, Gears, Hellblade etc.
• Sony won't need to moneyhat console exclusives that in the past had to keep away from XB or GP, so they will be able to invest this money on 1st/2nd party games or acquisitions (not big 3P publishers because wouldn't be needed and regulators probably wouldn't allow it).
• Since PS userbase would grow, several 3P who now choose Switch would now choose PS instead.

Again, there ISN'T 'high end console' market. That's a term coined by the FEC (and maybe other regulators) and it ended up backfiring in a way because Microsoft used it to exclude Nintendo out of presentations on market share so try make PlayStation look larger market share-wise than it actually is. Consoles don't really operate like the GPU market, there aren't new ranges of consoles releasing every year or every two years, so I don't understand why the term has gained any traction.

Not only that but how do you then retroactively segment the market for all the previous generations? Did anyone stop to ask if Nintendo purposefully created the Wii to be lower-end compared to PS3 & 360 to explicitly compete against them as a low-power alternative, or did they actually create it to go after a different market segment with their own market targets? Did anyone ask Sony if they designed the PS5 explicitly as a "high-end console", or did they just happen to try developing a logical step forward from the PS4 meeting power & price requirements to satisfy needs of 1P & 3P developers?

That's part of the reason I disagree with that label, "high-end consoles". It's just too loaded.

And your 3rd point, I don't necessarily agree with either for two reasons. #1 because it reduces the 3P exclusives to 'moneyhats', which ignore the multitude of other benefits 3P exclusives bring such as targeted optimization, maximized marketing & distribution efforts, access to certain 1P tech resources, brand coupling association, etc. As for big 3P acquisitions not being allowed by regulators, that really depends on what we mean by "big". Something within the realm of $10 billion valuation (just as an example) would be possible because Sony's market share advantage was earned through being a better competitor to significantly larger, resource-rich companies like Microsoft.

Generally, regulators don't have a problem with market monopolies as long as they were not illegally acquired. Sony/SIE have earned theirs through legitimate competition and showing consistent understanding of the market, and offering superior solutions for developers, publishers, and end customers (console gamers). So if they would want to, they could go for a Square-Enix, or a Capcom (again, I'm just listing as examples), etc. and get approval for them on those grounds alone. Or even somewhat larger publishers than those, if that was something they were interested in.

I know there are people who don't want to see consolidation (I don't necessarily want it, either), some who suddenly don't want to see a "certain" company make a large gaming acquisition, so on and so forth. But it's important IMO, to understand that there aren't nearly as many barriers for Sony/SIE in this area as some seem to think.

Seems that regulators will force at least in Android to allow 3P stores. Meaning we'll end seeing there Epic, MS and Sony stores in Android.

Possibly. Most likely, yeah. That's a bit removed from the console gaming space, but it does open up opportunities for other companies like the ones you listed.

If Xbox is totally dead, Sony could allow MS include a limited version of GP in PS, which only would include MS games published to be sold in PS, while also including some of them in PS Plus. The equivalent to what Sony already does with EA or Ubisoft subs.

Potentially, but that depends on what "totally dead" means. If it means Xbox console hardware continues to exist and get new generational refreshes, but rolls along in a zombie state, that actually still doesn't help Microsoft with getting Game Pass on PlayStation, IMHO. The act of the console hardware still existing whatsoever is the potential problem for platform holders like Sony (and Nintendo), because it would still mean Xbox is effectively operating as a traditional console business-wise. Just, a barely-alive one.

EA and Ubisoft get their services on PS because not only are they full-on 3P publishers (they don't withhold any gaming content from Sony in foreclosure strategies), they also don't have their own console hardware or storefront/launcher where they offer their games in full Day 1 in ways that completely undermine the B2P sales model Microsoft still does both of those things, so they wouldn't have a lot of traction with competing platforms for Game Pass on them.

I originally thought MS would stop making their own hardware and would make their own version of the Steam Machines: console shaped PCs that fit certain specs build by other brands. But the thing is that these brands wouldn't get any benefit because they'd prefer to do it using Steam as store, or as main store.

Well then, it's either they do in fact shift to that PC-style model (IMO they still get a direct benefit: locking PC gamers into the Windows ecosystem for gaming, making it less likely they hop over to Valve's own Steam OS/Linux-powered devices for gaming consumption), or stop making gaming hardware altogether outside of peripherals.

Me? I'm looking for something of a compromise, where they can still make gaming hardware, and potentially actually have some genuine innovation in doing so, while no longer providing so much natural conflict to console platform holders. So that in such a way, MS can go fully 3P in software support. And alongside that, also get services like Game Pass on gaming console platforms (which should be allowed to remain closed ecosystems due to pro-competitive and pro-consumer benefits of that approach for what are ultimately non-essential luxury entertainment devices, that have used a business model to resounding success for successful competitors in fair competitive markets for decades).

Nah, it isn't. The majority of the games under development to be published by Sony aren't GaaS. While almost all the main MS IPs already are GaaS. There's Gears and Doom left and I'd bet their next entry will be GaaS.

You can't really just focus on the "main" MS titles tho; it's all the titles, same for Sony. And games like Song of Midnight, Hellblade 2, HiFi Rush, Pentiment, Clockwork Revolution, Avowed, Tango's rumored JRPG...at least AFAIK, none of those are GaaS titles. So I'd say it's actually rather balanced on Microsoft's side of things.

With Sony, perhaps it's been balanced all along but the choice of information for 1P titles they've decided to share the past few months, plus the lack of reveals for new titles from a lot of their studios, have created the perception that they were trending heavily into GaaS with "some" focus on non-GaaS titles. That's on Sony for leading people into feeling that was the trajectory.

It's why the news of them scaling back on the 12 GaaS to 6 GaaS was such welcomed news well, basically, everywhere.

1st/2nd party GaaS are a help for Sony, they are very important and need them for their future. But they are very successful with their non-GaaS games, so they will continue focusing on growing them too. It's what I always thought and said.

Yeah, you have in ways. But when stuff like the funding percentages for GaaS eating up 60% allocation vs. traditional 40% by FY '25 came out, I don't think you were too considerate of the concerns of increased AAA dev costs for budgets, or inflation, factoring into a potential drop in # of games covered by those budget splits.

Although TBF, we also don't know the absolute dollar amounts in funding that were planned for those fiscal budgets. 40% of say $1 billion gets you a lot more than 40% of $250 million.

No, to have some important changes, delays and cancellations during development always have been normal business in the gaming industry. There's nothing special in that front in the GaaS side.

There kinda is with how public it's been. What you're describing, usually we never even hear about it. But there's been a clear chain of events in announcements and now cancellations for some of the GaaS stuff, that's been very public.

That's the "unusual" part, at least compared to how it normally seems to go.

MS has been slowly moving away from Xbox since a long time ago and slowly transitioning to being a multiplatform 3P. Not sure when, but at some point they will kill their own hardware (gamepads may continue alive) and say 'now Xbox is now a digital ecosystem that covers all gaming platforms: PC, mobile, smart tvs, PS and Nintendo'.

Oh okay, so you are 100% of the idea they will just stop making gaming hardware altogether outside of certain peripherals.

Hmm...well that's definitely possible. I'm trying to be more optimistic in that department for them, all things considered. That they still continue with gaming hardware, it would just operate much more like on a PC hardware/software/OS business model, with heavily gaming-centric hardware they can refresh every couple of years, sell for profits Day 1 upfront.

Having a tightly integrated kernel/OS/UI/apps/hardware package to drive Windows gaming, even if you're otherwise able to use any storefront you want like you would on Windows. Use productivity software like you would on Windows. Upgrade parts of the system (system RAM, SSD, maybe even CPU & GPU up to a limit depending on performance & form factor) like a PC.

But hey, they could just choose to forego hardware altogether, as well. Certainly possible.

They are already saying similar things, and if they can skip the 30% cut in mobile (something that sees will happen in a few years) they may accelerate it. Apparently they are working on a next gen console, which I assume it will be the last one if they release it.

If it's a console with that type of traditional console business model, they'll probably risk repeating what is happening this generation. And as well, just prolong the time they can have in building up a fanbase for their full catalog on Sony & Nintendo platforms, or getting Game Pass on those other platforms.

But their market share is shrinking year after year, to a point that they may decide they don't have enough Xbox userbase or market share to continue fighting for the console market and that it's time to go 3rd party. Specially that now with ABK they will be the top 1 3rd party on console and a one of the top 3rd parties in mobile too.

Kinda depends on if ABK can keep COD from declining in relevance. So there might be a lot riding on next year's entry in all honesty.

I think they will be fine and ok as 3rd party, specially if in addition to stopping the Xbox hardware and related moneyhats, which are only money sinks, they also cut the '3rd party games day one on GP' moneyhats, which is also a worthless money sink because GP growth is stagnant and isn't worth to keep trowing billions at it.

They would be able to refocus their main goal to sell games, and then they'd remove including their 1st party games on GP day one following that new focus, copying the more reasonable focus of Sony for game subs: including there games that already completed -or almost- their sales lifecycle.

True in theory, but like some others were saying in one of the other threads (IIRC), going full 3P might not be so lucrative if the quality of certain games doesn't significantly increase. Like, Forza Motorsport has some degree of relevance on Xbox as the premier racing sim of the platform holder. But if you take Xbox away, and released it in its current state on PS5, it now looks even more like the second-rate GT clone that many already feel it is. And it's perhaps more stark than ever comparing the recent Forza with GT7 in particular.

It's highly probable in that scenario, Forza actually performs worst than it currently has already, unless the quality were to take a massive leap forward to be more competitive with games like GT. And that's just one example. So it's either that, or MS cull back on the total number of games they develop & publish (something they'd likely have to do anyway, just like how we saw Sega do when they stopped making consoles), because a few of those games, like the Pentiments, you no longer need as "variety spices" to the 1P catalog to increase the value proposition of the console...because there is no longer a console, period.

 

[Heisenberg007]

There were several growth milestones they were expecting to hit before 2027 and outside of the ones they hit thanks to the boost Covid/pandemic gave them and everyone else, they have yet to hit any of them, and are churning around the same number of users, more or less. They also massively overshot how much they expected to invest in the division. Again - Covid boost to GP really blinded them on how well the service was actually doing.

To put it bluntly, when Nadella removed GP growth off of his KPIs, a whole heck of a lot changed at Xbox and Microsoft gaming.

People underestimate this very important development so much that this is hardly talked about.

The narrative is that "console sales do not matter because it's all about Game Pass for Xbox." In that case, why would Nadella remove that KPI?

More importantly, if Xbox is truly forecasted and believed to hit 100 million Game Pass subs (or even 50 million subs with a fantastic 100% growth), why wouldn't Nadella keep that as a KPI and get additional bonus for it?

The truth is that (1) Game Pass is not the be-all-end-all for Xbox as it still only represents 10-15% of revenue, and (2) not even Nadella believes that Game Pass is the future or it has any growth potential.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

There’s no way GP gets to 100 million by 2027. There’s probably little chance it gets to 50 million. People think that clockwork game or Hellblade 3, or Blade is going to push subs? Those games highest goal is to reduce churn, and keep people that already have GP from unsubscribing.

People who thought this was Netflix, and the MS idiot who said PlayStation was blockbuster, are learning cold hard truths about the real world and how it’s not as easy as copying a model from another industry. There’s no water cooler here, these idiots really thought my wife would suddenly know how to control a 3D camera through a controller? What the fuck man, do these people making decisions even know how to play games?

Netflix can come up with a killer show in a year to push subscriptions. It takes Microsoft 5+ years to make a single game. It was a foolish comparison in the first place.

There is no Stranger Things, Squid Games, Money Heist, Wednesday, Witcher, Bird Box.

Sony is even ahead of Microsoft in doing something that is really successful for Netflix which is tapping into foreign markets for development.

Everyone wants to be the next last big thing, but not everything translates from one sector to another.

Are there 100 million gamers who want to pay for a subscription?

Netflix is a subscription service that guess what... replaced a subscription service in Cable TV not just Blockbuster.

Most people can only consume so much gaming, so the volume of consumption available in a gaming subscription model isn't as conducive to generating interest as TV/Movies and Music, which are all significantly more passive.

Spotify has 226 million subscribers and Apple Music has 88 million. Tencent, Amazon, and Youtube music all have significant numbers as well.

Netflix has a lot of subscribers, but the other streaming services don't really. Gaming was always going to be more finite than TV.

Microsoft bragged about spending a billion dollars on content from 3rd parties... Netflix spends 16+ billion a year on content just to maintain it's already passive audience.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Again, there ISN'T 'high end console' market. That's a term coined by the FEC (and maybe other regulators) and it ended up backfiring in a way because Microsoft used it to exclude Nintendo out of presentations on market share so try make PlayStation look larger market share-wise than it actually is. Consoles don't really operate like the GPU market, there aren't new ranges of consoles releasing every year or every two years, so I don't understand why the term has gained any traction.

Not only that but how do you then retroactively segment the market for all the previous generations? Did anyone stop to ask if Nintendo purposefully created the Wii to be lower-end compared to PS3 & 360 to explicitly compete against them as a low-power alternative, or did they actually create it to go after a different market segment with their own market targets? Did anyone ask Sony if they designed the PS5 explicitly as a "high-end console", or did they just happen to try developing a logical step forward from the PS4 meeting power & price requirements to satisfy needs of 1P & 3P developers?

There is a natural formation of markets within markets. And these don't require having specific conversations.

When you look at high end 4KTVs tvs, they're generally priced similarly to compete against one another.

It's clear that Nintendo decided that they needed to shift gears after losing market share trying to compete directly against Sony with the N64 and Gamecube.

The NES sold 61 million units, the SNES with more competition from Sega dropped to 49 million units. With more competition from Sony the N64 dropped to 33 million. And competing with the new market leader, the Gamecube dropped to 21 million units. If Nintendo had released another HD gaming system at the same price and similar features of the 360 and PS3, it would have sold less than 15 million units.

Instead, they shifted gears, aiming for more casual gamers with a much more affordable device and sold 100 million units, almost more than the 3 previous generations combined...

Your question is a bit of a misnomer. No one needs to ask Nintendo anything, we only need to look at their actions. Whereas Sony and Microsoft are specifically competing on price and power. Nintendo is not.

To yurinka 's point there is serious advantages for Sony in having a monopoly, even a short-lived one. I doubt more money goes into 1st party games, but rather money would be sunk into growth opportunities outside of consoles. That's where money ends up going to exclusivity on a PC storefront instead of on console. Sony would love to push Microsoft out of the market.

It's an extra maybe 30-40 million units sold over the console's life, which is like an extra 4-6 million units per year, and probably at a higher margin.

That's when you see Sony set its sights more on Valve and Meta.

The question that we should be asking is whether any of that is necessarily good for gamers, particularly console gamers, and I think the answer is probably no.

 

[Yoda]

Microsoft is still paying the price for not investing in it's 1st party last gen. Takes a long time to build a suite of solid studios.

 

[Ronin_7]

Microsoft is still paying the price for not investing in it's 1st party last gen. Takes a long time to build a suite of solid studios.

They still haven't build shit though.

Look at Redfall or new Forza, absolute disasters.

Starfield although not bad, still failed miserably.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Microsoft is still paying the price for not investing in it's 1st party last gen. Takes a long time to build a suite of solid studios.

I think this is the most underrated concept. Phil likes to say they lost the most important generation, but he doesn't talk about why.

That being said, they actually needed to invest in 1st party 15 years ago, to really have felt the impacts culturally.

Sony bought Naughty Dog in 2001, Guerrilla Games in 2005, Media Molecule in 2010, Sucker Punch in 2011, Insomniac in 2019, Bluepoint and Nixxes in 2021, Haven in 2022, and Firewalk in 2023.

Sony's purchase of Naughty Dog really paid off in 2009 (8 years), Guerrilla Games in 2017 (12 years), Sucker Punch in 2020 (9 years).

Games take even longer to develop now and the competition is even fiercer. There is no coincidence that they've never won Game of The Year.

Microsoft has only gotten worse losing Bungie and letting Epic go its own way. Success smoothes most things over. You rarely hear about bad blood with Sony and studios. You've had a handful kind of break away from Sony, Clap Hanz (who was selling less and less), Insomniac for a short period (also selling less and less). Quantic Dream is probably the biggest example, but that wasn't Sony's fault.

Microsoft probably could have purchased Epic or bought into them instead of Tencent.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They still haven't build shit though.

Look at Redfall or new Forza, absolute disasters.

Starfield although not bad, still failed miserably.

Rank all of the studios Microsoft owns and has purchased against the industry average.

You need system selling IP, which are rare and you need time and maybe more importantly timing.

Look at deathloop and Arkane... how long is it going to take for them to develop another game? Blade which isn't a system selling IP, will probably take them 4-5 years... So assuming it's been in development since 2021, you're still looking at 2025-2026... for a game that is never going to push systems and probably will go no attention for GOTY. But Microsoft wanted to chase that Marvel money and it is an investment, but even if it pays off, you're still looking at not getting another Marvel game out before say 2030...

Time and timing has hurt Microsoft. They don't have the luxury of long term investments, so they should be buying studios with games that are coming out in 2024, 2025.

But you look at the list of games for 2024 and it's really barebones. No needle movers. It's funny, if Microsoft had delayed Starfield to 2025, polished it up, maybe it wins GOTY pretty easily.

 

[Sw0pDiller]

Sounds like a cliché i know but Microsoft is setting up shop for next gen. They have all the big marbles in their bag and are building a console les future. With all the big named Activision Bethesda and ms gamestudios on lock and exclusive to pc and systems that Will run a gameplay variant. They can recover quit easy. They have the money and patiënce to wait this storm out. After ps5 they will rise out of the ashes. So, still no need to buy an Xbox right now. But they are going to be the biggest player in about 4 to 5 years time. And they dont need expensive console developing anymore.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Sounds like a cliché i know but Microsoft is setting up shop for next gen. They have all the big marbles in their bag and are building a console les future. With all the big named Activision Bethesda and ms gamestudios on lock and exclusive to pc and systems that Will run a gameplay variant. They can recover quit easy. They have the money and patiënce to wait this storm out. After ps5 they will rise out of the ashes. So, still no need to buy an Xbox right now. But they are going to be the biggest player in about 4 to 5 years time. And they dont need expensive console developing anymore.

Agreed. They could quite easily drop console hardware themselves and still make hay. Doing so would likely give them greater access to the usually huge PlayStation and Nintendo userbases, as well as adding to their current plans for PC, mobile and subscriptions.

It'll likely cause some large consolidation and job losses on the Xbox side, but that would be necessary to pivot.

Sony taking 30% of each of their games would suit them too. It would lessen the need to go as heavy into GAAS if everyone else doing it gives them a cut. They'll have their own of course, but Bungie and a few others could handle that.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Sounds like a cliché i know but Microsoft is setting up shop for next gen. They have all the big marbles in their bag and are building a console les future. With all the big named Activision Bethesda and ms gamestudios on lock and exclusive to pc and systems that Will run a gameplay variant. They can recover quit easy. They have the money and patiënce to wait this storm out. After ps5 they will rise out of the ashes. So, still no need to buy an Xbox right now. But they are going to be the biggest player in about 4 to 5 years time. And they dont need expensive console developing anymore.

The same speech from MS fanbase, every year, for the past 10 years.
Never fails!
I'll add this to the list of Xmas traditions.

Pure Stockholm syndrome, the more they are abused, the more faith they have in their abusers.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Sounds like a cliché i know but Microsoft is setting up shop for next gen. They have all the big marbles in their bag and are building a console les future. With all the big named Activision Bethesda and ms gamestudios on lock and exclusive to pc and systems that Will run a gameplay variant. They can recover quit easy. They have the money and patiënce to wait this storm out. After ps5 they will rise out of the ashes. So, still no need to buy an Xbox right now. But they are going to be the biggest player in about 4 to 5 years time. And they dont need expensive console developing anymore.

Only one problem with that. Being third party will force them to have games that will fight will themselves and the competition all the time. No more console tax to help them, no more marketing deals. Gamepass or burst. And they will loose whatever control they had in the market. They will have to adapt to Sony and Nintendo hardware plans instead of being able to make their own. IF Sony push VR for the PS6, and make a VR mode mandatory, they will have to do it for example. What will happen to the Xbox controller? Will they just continue to make new ones for PC, or make a deal with Sony for a Dualshock 6 rebranded and green? What is scary is that as a third party Xbox would be Activision++ more than Xbox++. And ONE failure could hurt them a lot more than before. If a new Fortnite is created, who will be happy about it? The remaining console makers. Who will be hurt? The concurrents, of witch Xbox will be one among many. Or the next Minecraft. As long as Nvidia continue their Geforce Now, even a console less future will have a better option than Microsoft by design. And that make us go back to Gamepass. No that Xbox can't make it work. Just that I consider that a loss of ambitions. And that at Microsoft level, it would be like making pennies when they have much better pillars of profit. As I prefer PS, I don't mind. But the consolidation that S StealthGoblin talked about will be ugly.

 

[GHG]

Rank all of the studios Microsoft owns and has purchased against the industry average.

You need system selling IP, which are rare and you need time and maybe more importantly timing.

Look at deathloop and Arkane... how long is it going to take for them to develop another game? Blade which isn't a system selling IP, will probably take them 4-5 years... So assuming it's been in development since 2021, you're still looking at 2025-2026... for a game that is never going to push systems and probably will go no attention for GOTY. But Microsoft wanted to chase that Marvel money and it is an investment, but even if it pays off, you're still looking at not getting another Marvel game out before say 2030...

Time and timing has hurt Microsoft. They don't have the luxury of long term investments, so they should be buying studios with games that are coming out in 2024, 2025.

But you look at the list of games for 2024 and it's really barebones. No needle movers. It's funny, if Microsoft had delayed Starfield to 2025, polished it up, maybe it wins GOTY pretty easily.

The main issue is that they are always chasing trends and as a result they are always late to the party. It's getting worse as time goes on because big games take so long to make now.

Considering the amount of money they have, if there's one company that should be taking bigger risks with being inventive and innovating (both on the hardware and software side of things) it's them.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Agreed. They could quite easily drop console hardware themselves and still make hay. Doing so would likely give them greater access to the usually huge PlayStation and Nintendo userbases, as well as adding to their current plans for PC, mobile and subscriptions.

It'll likely cause some large consolidation and job losses on the Xbox side, but that would be necessary to pivot.

Sony taking 30% of each of their games would suit them too. It would lessen the need to go as heavy into GAAS if everyone else doing it gives them a cut. They'll have their own of course, but Bungie and a few others could handle that.

These are all the numbers we don't have. The cost involved with launching new hardware, the ongoing hardware subsidy, and the operating cost of the Xbox platform.

Is that all sufficiently offset by the royalties made from 3rd party and gamepass specifically on Xbox?

We see Sony's operating income and it's nothing to write home about. Can only imagine it is more minuscule for Xbox.

Being a 3rd party publisher can be very lucrative. ABK by all means is higher valued than Xbox itself. Same could be said of T2 and EA.

 

[Woopah]

Sorry for the late reply!

My idea is that if Xbox dissapears, there's a portion of Xbox players who already are on other consoles or PC, so would continue playing there. The people who only play on Xbox would move to either PC, PS or Switch.

You'd think many of them would move to PC, following MS and GP, but if MS completes their transition to going full 3P it would mean their games will be on PS. And many console players play on console and not in PC for many reasons.

So I think a big majority of the Xbox only players would move to PS. So between Switch and PS, PS would be the most benefited. On top of that, people will see PS more appealing because now would have the former 1st and 3rd party Xbox exclusives.

I agree that more XB players will move to PS than Switch, given the greater similarities. However I think Switch 2 will benefit more from getting COD, Crash Bandicoot etc. on day 1, since PS already gets those games Day 1.

I also think that independently if Xbox dies or not, the PS userbase will be bigger than now specially in the non-Japan Asia due to growing their brands via PC, mobile and movies or tv shows plus taking extra efforts like China/India Hero project and deals with Korean companies.

Non-Japan Asia is certainly a big growth area for Switch and PS, but I don't see PS getting close to Switch any time soon (potentially PS could be leading Switch in India and other countries where Sony has an official presence and Nintendo doesn't).

Considering everything, I think PS will have a considerably bigger userbase around 5 years from now. While I think Nintendo will see their portables monopoly broken due to PC handhelds (but with Nintendo still having like 66.6%-75% of the portables market) as soon as due to times costs go low and for the same price of a Switch 2 you'll be able to get a similar or more powerful PC handheld equivalent. There's also a nascent market of AAA games on mobile (we just saw a few examples in Apple, and there are the Meta Quest games, which are Andriod games), that I think in 5 years from now will be bigger but still pretty small.

I do expect the Switch 2 to have a smaller lead over PS5 than Switch had over PS4, but ultimately both Switch 2 and PS5 will end up with 110+ million sold so their differences in userbase will not be that large. (this is of course assuming there's no weird Nintendo-style fuck-up with the Switch 2).

On the PC handhelds front, what are you expecitng to cause the hugee jump sales? Is it from lower prices, or from new entires into the market?

If we put PC handhelds and Switch 2 into their own market, then to get 33.33% of the market those handheld PCs would have to reach at least 55 million sold. And given that things like the Steam Deck or ROG Ally are only selling a couple million a year each, that is a big ask.

So certain 3P companies will choose PS+PC (which includes PC handhelds), particularly indies who aren't Nintendo fanboys because they won't need Switch to get a portable version of their game and because for having a console version of their game they'll favor the console with the biggest install base, which I think will be PS.

I don't think indies or any third parties are choosing Switch just to tick a "have portable version" box. Its because they can make a lot of money from the Switch ecosystem, and that will continue with Switch 2. Due to launching first, PS5 will definitely have a bigger than userbase than Switch 2 just like PS4 started off with a bigger userbase than Switch, but that won't be a good reason for developers to skip Switch 2.

But I'm not saying that all 3rd parties that still are there will drop their support to Switch 2. I think only a small portion -and most will be indies- will do, but when having to choose between Nintendo or Sony exclusives more will choose PS than they do now.

There will be still be third parties that go with exclusivity deals with Sony or Nintendo due to the benefits that can provide. For multiplatform games with no platform holder support, it doesn't really make sense to choose PS + PC or Switch 2 + PC when you can just release on all three platforms.

 

[ByWatterson]

Don't forget about the 7.5 billion on ZeniMax Media, and they spent 500m on Starfield's budget.

They're not getting their money back from those acquisitions any time soon. Honestly, questions have to be asked about Phil Spencer.

As a lawyer might say, "Asked and answered."

 

[Snowdonhoffen]

Don't know if it's thread worthy but this is what Jez has to say about the whole exclusives topic.

EDIT: Someone pointed out the Microsoft copyright in the As Dusk Falls trailer in the PlayStation channel. I guess that puts the "who owns the IP" topic to rest.

 

[LordCBH]

Don't know if it's thread worthy but this is what Jez has to say about the whole exclusives topic.

EDIT: Someone pointed out the Microsoft copyright in the As Dusk Falls trailer in the PlayStation channel. I guess that puts the "who owns the IP" topic to rest.

Considering Jez’s track record, that confirms that a limited subset of Xbox titles will be making the third party jump in a few years.

 

[Crayon]

Don't know if it's thread worthy but this is what Jez has to say about the whole exclusives topic.

EDIT: Someone pointed out the Microsoft copyright in the As Dusk Falls trailer in the PlayStation channel. I guess that puts the "who owns the IP" topic to rest.

I wonder where he is hearing it from. Just floating around in comments or from another notable influencer or what?

 

[SneakersSO]

I wonder where he is hearing it from. Just floating around in comments or from another notable influencer or what?

Jez doesn't know anything that isn't spoonfed to him by his MS contacts. This isn't gonna be a blanket announcement or story. It'll be a slow-trickle of announcements that establishes a new norm, and thats all. Mega-corps like MS will never go out and make any announcement that can have them be viewed as being in a negative or poor position - could affect stock prices too much.

Anyway, this is one of those situations where nothing has to be said. Just let the ports/games speak for themselves. Too many I now know about from colleagues working on them to really doubt its occurring.

 

[jm89]

Too many I now know about from colleagues working on them to really doubt its occurring.

 

[Crayon]

Jez doesn't know anything that isn't spoonfed to him by his MS contacts. This isn't gonna be a blanket announcement or story. It'll be a slow-trickle of announcements that establishes a new norm, and thats all. Mega-corps like MS will never go out and make any announcement that can have them be viewed as being in a negative or poor position - could affect stock prices too much.

Anyway, this is one of those situations where nothing has to be said. Just let the ports/games speak for themselves. Too many I now know about from colleagues working on them to really doubt its occurring.

All good but I was just wondering who he's responding to. Sounds like general online chatter, right?I only hang out here so idk how widespread this chatter/ rumor is.

 

[rofif]

If you're right then Sony will know too, since they'll be sending PS5 Pro dev kits to dozens of studios under Microsoft's umbrella right now ....

These both companies know everything about each other. They both know what next consoles specs will be and when.

 

[Baki]

Microsoft is still paying the price for not investing in it's 1st party last gen. Takes a long time to build a suite of solid studios.

MS has certainly made the investments. That's something you can't criticise them for. The problem is clearly with the Xbox leadership and strategy.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Microsoft is still paying the price for not investing in it's 1st party last gen. Takes a long time to build a suite of solid studios.

You are talking about spending money. Xbox never stopped doing that. The problem is that the Xbox Division has something ingrained that stops them from making good games; the fact that the purpose of Xbox isn't about selling games.

Both Playstation and Nintendo understand that their business is making and selling games. Xbox didn't exist for that purpose. So until they do exist for that purpose, Xbox would always half ass everything. And more money changes nothing.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There is a natural formation of markets within markets. And these don't require having specific conversations.

When you look at high end 4KTVs tvs, they're generally priced similarly to compete against one another.

It's clear that Nintendo decided that they needed to shift gears after losing market share trying to compete directly against Sony with the N64 and Gamecube.

The NES sold 61 million units, the SNES with more competition from Sega dropped to 49 million units. With more competition from Sony the N64 dropped to 33 million. And competing with the new market leader, the Gamecube dropped to 21 million units. If Nintendo had released another HD gaming system at the same price and similar features of the 360 and PS3, it would have sold less than 15 million units.

Instead, they shifted gears, aiming for more casual gamers with a much more affordable device and sold 100 million units, almost more than the 3 previous generations combined...

Your question is a bit of a misnomer. No one needs to ask Nintendo anything, we only need to look at their actions. Whereas Sony and Microsoft are specifically competing on price and power. Nintendo is not.

All I'm really saying is that when we're using terms like "high end console", we have to be careful with the usage and the context because AFAIK, the first time it came about in any prevalent amount was during the regulatory appeals and court cases for ABK, and among politicians. In all of those instances, it was used with the purpose of boxing Nintendo out of the conversation, to try stating Sony's market share in console gaming was bigger than it is in markets like Japan, to give Microsoft leverage with regulators and judges in getting the ABK deal approved (and alongside with certain stupid US senators, threaten to launch investigations into the Japanese market off some idiotic belief the Japanese government was "preventing" Microsoft from competing in that market).

I'm not going to disregard the usage of the term in that context which is why I'm hesitant using it in other contexts even if I at some level can see what you are getting at and agree with it. That market definitions can arise naturally among customers and hobbyists within it. And in a lot of cases, that comes down to how companies in that market compete against one another. However, I'd use different terms to define them because if anything the "high end console" market only really exists with Microsoft in the Series X, while the "low end console" market would exist with the Series S. Sony did not pursue a split power SKU this generation (thankfully), and while they offer the PS4 (in very limited numbers) as a low-end console entry into their ecosystem, it was purposefully designed as a low-end console. It's just the previous generation's "high-end console" now serving as their "low-end console".

Except even that is misleading because it would have to, IMO, assume that it was designed as a "high-end console" for its generation, which supposes there was a "low-end" console variant. However, there was in fact no "low-end console" PlayStation variant prioritized commercially concurrently to the PS4, except at best the PS3, again as a very limited-produced (in volume) system once PS4 went into availability, and the PS3 itself just a repurposed cheaper entry point offering for the PlayStation brand at the time, i.e it was never developed as a "high-end" offering for the market between 2006 - 2013, but as a full-on replacement for the PS2. That didn't quite happen due to mistakes Sony made early on, but that's how I look at it. If there was a "low-end" console variant for say the PS3, it'd of been one with less storage perhaps, or lacking some USB ports, but otherwise the actual power/performance remained the same across all models.

As for Nintendo...they do not really make "consoles"..., well home consoles, in a sense. Systems like the PS5 & Series are stationary home consoles, but the Switch is a portable hybrid. It has a very different form factor than Sony & Microsoft's systems, but it being significantly weaker than their systems is in part out of choice on Nintendo's part. That's just their own philosophy. If they really wanted, they could make a Switch 2 as capable as a PS5 or Series X (well, there's already rumors it will be at Series S level with DLSS 3.2 factored in when it's docked) and take a loss-leading price model similar to Sony & Microsoft to keep it affordable at something like $499, but they simply choose not to do that.

It's really the differences in form factor and flexibility of usage though, why I cannot consider something like the Switch a "low-end console"....it's not "really" a console at all in the way PS5 and Xbox Series are. However, they'd still be considered part of the console gaming market, because their business model still has a lot more in common with Sony & Microsoft than it does say Google or Apple. That's just the way I look at it, but it's why I personally don't use terms like "high end console", because if that means calling something like the Switch a "low-end console", then I have to accept that such a market doesn't exist.

The closest I think I'd say we have had to a "low-end console" market was either systems like the Ouya (which crashed & burned), or mini consoles like the SNES Classic and Genesis Mini. However, the mini consoles don't have storefronts, don't get new regular releases or updates, and aren't regularly manufactured or sold, so they can't be considered a persistent market, hence they can't be considered a "low-end console" market either, IMHO.

To yurinka 's point there is serious advantages for Sony in having a monopoly, even a short-lived one. I doubt more money goes into 1st party games, but rather money would be sunk into growth opportunities outside of consoles. That's where money ends up going to exclusivity on a PC storefront instead of on console. Sony would love to push Microsoft out of the market.

I think some point decades later, Sony will seriously look into a PC storefront/launcher with some type of subscription system optionally tied in to it. However, they will not do such until there is simply no path forward for console gaming outside of obsolescence, and I feel we're very far away from that happening.

The reason it'll be so long because any such push would inevitably cut into the sales potential of their own physical consoles, and honestly, I think Sony would sooner open up PlayStation to more PC-like functionality before shifting to prioritizing a PC storefront and launcher. If it's about retaining as much vertical integration as possible, doing that with the console first would be the priority.

It's an extra maybe 30-40 million units sold over the console's life, which is like an extra 4-6 million units per year, and probably at a higher margin.

That's when you see Sony set its sights more on Valve and Meta.

The question that we should be asking is whether any of that is necessarily good for gamers, particularly console gamers, and I think the answer is probably no.

Personally I don't think launching a PC storefront results in more physical consoles sold. If anything, it'd mean less consoles, because the assumption is that with the storefront would also come all of Sony's 1P titles Day 1, otherwise there isn't much a point and they'd also have issue getting 3P to put their titles on that storefront too without 'leading the way', as it were.

However, they could monetize that storefront to "essentially" generate 30-40 million consoles sold worth of revenue through ad-supported and various paid subscription tiers. That's particularly important for users who may only go for the F2P titles, don't need the storefront for online gaming purposes (it's PC, after all), and may not buy many or any games. Sony would have to consider any subscriber to the PC storefront as a potential console sale lost; the idea is to retain as much of the revenue they'd get from console within that PC storefront, and that has to account for a LOT of things. 1P & 3P game purchases, MTX purchases, subscriptions, console sales revenue, peripheral sales, and other things I wouldn't even have the first idea about.

That's just another reason why I'd say, Sony don't even consider shifting to that type of strategy for at least another full console generation, and that's near the tail end. Maybe even further out than that, because again, I think they'd rather just open up PlayStation as a platform/device to allowing more PC-like functionality & freedom while still retaining a mostly traditional console business model.

Funny thing is, I'm thinking that's what Microsoft are going to do with their rumored next-gen console hardware. Big difference being, it's not going to retain the traditional console business model, so it'd be them going way more full-tilt into that PC space, to the point you likely can't call Xbox a "video game console" anymore. But that works well for Microsoft because they have so many vested interests in PC space that Sony lack, hence why I think Sony's approach would (or should) be much more gradual, less aggressive, and if anything prioritize PlayStation as the central point in their gaming ecosystem well before getting aggressive with a storefront & launcher on PC (which would, for purposes of needing mass volume of customers, require basically supporting Windows and all of the frameworks, APIs, SDKs etc. that Microsoft own).

 

[DenchDeckard]

Sony would need to agree game pass on PlayStation for Microsoft to start porting games to playstation imo.

They are a business and gamepass is their holy grail for entertainment. Everything is to feed gamepass growth. Just like office, windows etc. Its all services for Microsoft now...and AI of course.

 

[Varteras]

Sony would need to agree game pass on PlayStation for Microsoft to start porting games to playstation imo.

They are a business and gamepass is their holy grail for entertainment. Everything is to feed gamepass growth. Just like office, windows etc. Its all services for Microsoft now...and AI of course.

Doesn't quite seem like their holy grail anymore.

 

[Yoda]

You are talking about spending money. Xbox never stopped doing that. The problem is that the Xbox Division has something ingrained that stops them from making good games; the fact that the purpose of Xbox isn't about selling games.

Both Playstation and Nintendo understand that their business is making and selling games. Xbox didn't exist for that purpose. So until they do exist for that purpose, Xbox would always half ass everything. And more money changes nothing.

I agree, Microsoft's corporate culture hamstrings what investment they have done. But investing isn't just about raw $$ spent, it's a mindset. The mindset at Microsoft only drifted in this direction after it was extremely obvious that 1st party games sell the platform (the consoles) and without that they're ability to monetize their "gaming division" looks more like a larger publisher vs. a platform provider. Unfortunately they still see content as a money problem, not a culture problem (look at Halo, Starfield, etc...), without much more rapid accountability for failures (Took Bonnie Ross multiple failures to get fired) this wont be fixed.

 

[SneakersSO]

Sony would need to agree game pass on PlayStation for Microsoft to start porting games to playstation imo.

They are a business and gamepass is their holy grail for entertainment. Everything is to feed gamepass growth. Just like office, windows etc. Its all services for Microsoft now...and AI of course.

Sony has not agreed to it, nor will they ever. More importantly - MS wouldn't want that themselves. They'd make more money on full game sales in that eco. There is a reason why the biggest software revenue for them is coming from PC, and its not cause of the Windows Store.

 

[bender]

They are a business and gamepass is their holy grail for entertainment.

 

[Crayon]

These both companies know everything about each other. They both know what next consoles specs will be and when.

There's an email from phil about how much he had been anticipating the road to ps5 talk, and how elated he was once he saw it that day. Even then, he did not seem to understand what he saw. So they can definitely keep a lot from each other.

 

[Crayon]

All I'm really saying is that when we're using terms like "high end console", we have to be careful with the usage and the context because AFAIK, the first time it came about in any prevalent amount was during the regulatory appeals and court cases for ABK, and among politicians. In all of those instances, it was used with the purpose of boxing Nintendo out of the conversation, to try stating Sony's market share in console gaming was bigger than it is in markets like Japan, to give Microsoft leverage with regulators and judges in getting the ABK deal approved (and alongside with certain stupid US senators, threaten to launch investigations into the Japanese market off some idiotic belief the Japanese government was "preventing" Microsoft from competing in that market).

I'm not going to disregard the usage of the term in that context which is why I'm hesitant using it in other contexts even if I at some level can see what you are getting at and agree with it. That market definitions can arise naturally among customers and hobbyists within it. And in a lot of cases, that comes down to how companies in that market compete against one another. However, I'd use different terms to define them because if anything the "high end console" market only really exists with Microsoft in the Series X, while the "low end console" market would exist with the Series S. Sony did not pursue a split power SKU this generation (thankfully), and while they offer the PS4 (in very limited numbers) as a low-end console entry into their ecosystem, it was purposefully designed as a low-end console. It's just the previous generation's "high-end console" now serving as their "low-end console".

Except even that is misleading because it would have to, IMO, assume that it was designed as a "high-end console" for its generation, which supposes there was a "low-end" console variant. However, there was in fact no "low-end console" PlayStation variant prioritized commercially concurrently to the PS4, except at best the PS3, again as a very limited-produced (in volume) system once PS4 went into availability, and the PS3 itself just a repurposed cheaper entry point offering for the PlayStation brand at the time, i.e it was never developed as a "high-end" offering for the market between 2006 - 2013, but as a full-on replacement for the PS2. That didn't quite happen due to mistakes Sony made early on, but that's how I look at it. If there was a "low-end" console variant for say the PS3, it'd of been one with less storage perhaps, or lacking some USB ports, but otherwise the actual power/performance remained the same across all models.

As for Nintendo...they do not really make "consoles"..., well home consoles, in a sense. Systems like the PS5 & Series are stationary home consoles, but the Switch is a portable hybrid. It has a very different form factor than Sony & Microsoft's systems, but it being significantly weaker than their systems is in part out of choice on Nintendo's part. That's just their own philosophy. If they really wanted, they could make a Switch 2 as capable as a PS5 or Series X (well, there's already rumors it will be at Series S level with DLSS 3.2 factored in when it's docked) and take a loss-leading price model similar to Sony & Microsoft to keep it affordable at something like $499, but they simply choose not to do that.

It's really the differences in form factor and flexibility of usage though, why I cannot consider something like the Switch a "low-end console"....it's not "really" a console at all in the way PS5 and Xbox Series are. However, they'd still be considered part of the console gaming market, because their business model still has a lot more in common with Sony & Microsoft than it does say Google or Apple. That's just the way I look at it, but it's why I personally don't use terms like "high end console", because if that means calling something like the Switch a "low-end console", then I have to accept that such a market doesn't exist.

The closest I think I'd say we have had to a "low-end console" market was either systems like the Ouya (which crashed & burned), or mini consoles like the SNES Classic and Genesis Mini. However, the mini consoles don't have storefronts, don't get new regular releases or updates, and aren't regularly manufactured or sold, so they can't be considered a persistent market, hence they can't be considered a "low-end console" market either, IMHO.



I think some point decades later, Sony will seriously look into a PC storefront/launcher with some type of subscription system optionally tied in to it. However, they will not do such until there is simply no path forward for console gaming outside of obsolescence, and I feel we're very far away from that happening.

The reason it'll be so long because any such push would inevitably cut into the sales potential of their own physical consoles, and honestly, I think Sony would sooner open up PlayStation to more PC-like functionality before shifting to prioritizing a PC storefront and launcher. If it's about retaining as much vertical integration as possible, doing that with the console first would be the priority.



Personally I don't think launching a PC storefront results in more physical consoles sold. If anything, it'd mean less consoles, because the assumption is that with the storefront would also come all of Sony's 1P titles Day 1, otherwise there isn't much a point and they'd also have issue getting 3P to put their titles on that storefront too without 'leading the way', as it were.

However, they could monetize that storefront to "essentially" generate 30-40 million consoles sold worth of revenue through ad-supported and various paid subscription tiers. That's particularly important for users who may only go for the F2P titles, don't need the storefront for online gaming purposes (it's PC, after all), and may not buy many or any games. Sony would have to consider any subscriber to the PC storefront as a potential console sale lost; the idea is to retain as much of the revenue they'd get from console within that PC storefront, and that has to account for a LOT of things. 1P & 3P game purchases, MTX purchases, subscriptions, console sales revenue, peripheral sales, and other things I wouldn't even have the first idea about.

That's just another reason why I'd say, Sony don't even consider shifting to that type of strategy for at least another full console generation, and that's near the tail end. Maybe even further out than that, because again, I think they'd rather just open up PlayStation as a platform/device to allowing more PC-like functionality & freedom while still retaining a mostly traditional console business model.

Funny thing is, I'm thinking that's what Microsoft are going to do with their rumored next-gen console hardware. Big difference being, it's not going to retain the traditional console business model, so it'd be them going way more full-tilt into that PC space, to the point you likely can't call Xbox a "video game console" anymore. But that works well for Microsoft because they have so many vested interests in PC space that Sony lack, hence why I think Sony's approach would (or should) be much more gradual, less aggressive, and if anything prioritize PlayStation as the central point in their gaming ecosystem well before getting aggressive with a storefront & launcher on PC (which would, for purposes of needing mass volume of customers, require basically supporting Windows and all of the frameworks, APIs, SDKs etc. that Microsoft own).

I'm just calling it the Thousand Dollar XBbox then. Like the Five Dollar Shake.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sony would need to agree game pass on PlayStation for Microsoft to start porting games to playstation imo.

They are a business and gamepass is their holy grail for entertainment. Everything is to feed gamepass growth. Just like office, windows etc. Its all services for Microsoft now...and AI of course.

There is no Game Pass on PlayStation as long as Microsoft continues to act as a direct competitor with a gaming hardware platform. I also suspect their Day 1 availability for games into the service may be an issue since it'd cut down on a good amount of B2P sales revenue cut for Sony, if people get the sub, yet they don't work out a flexible licensing deal for Game Pass itself on PlayStation.

For example, Microsoft would probably have to engage in a revenue share model with Sony where every Game Pass sub through PlayStation gets Sony a certain cut of all sub revenue off that sub for the duration of the service's availability on the platform. That's the only way it could work with Microsoft doing Day 1 for all their games in the service, and even then, it'll only potentially happen if Microsoft cease making Xbox game consoles (or still continue making Xbox systems, but as PC-style gaming devices and not home consoles).

And truth is, it's Microsoft who needs Sony in this exchange, not the other way around. So those are probably the terms I'd see being in play.

I'm just calling it the Thousand Dollar XBbox then. Like the Five Dollar Shake.

A Thousand Dollar Xbox worth as much as a Five Dollar Shake? Yeah at this point, probably.

Spoiler

J/k

 

[DenchDeckard]

Doesn't quite seem like their holy grail anymore.

It definitely is....I don't know where you got this impression.

Sony has not agreed to it, nor will they ever. More importantly - MS wouldn't want that themselves. They'd make more money on full game sales in that eco. There is a reason why the biggest software revenue for them is coming from PC, and its not cause of the Windows Store.

Good point...I just think it has to in some way. I can't see Microsoft making Slough of a push with just PC gamepass. Not until streaming is at a mass adoption rate and then they will lose the console, or living room box.

There is no Game Pass on PlayStation as long as Microsoft continues to act as a direct competitor with a gaming hardware platform. I also suspect their Day 1 availability for games into the service may be an issue since it'd cut down on a good amount of B2P sales revenue cut for Sony, if people get the sub, yet they don't work out a flexible licensing deal for Game Pass itself on PlayStation.

For example, Microsoft would probably have to engage in a revenue share model with Sony where every Game Pass sub through PlayStation gets Sony a certain cut of all sub revenue off that sub for the duration of the service's availability on the platform. That's the only way it could work with Microsoft doing Day 1 for all their games in the service, and even then, it'll only potentially happen if Microsoft cease making Xbox game consoles (or still continue making Xbox systems, but as PC-style gaming devices and not home consoles).

And truth is, it's Microsoft who needs Sony in this exchange, not the other way around. So those are probably the terms I'd see being in play.



A Thousand Dollar Xbox worth as much as a Five Dollar Shake? Yeah at this point, probably.

Spoiler

J/k

Great points, I think Microsoft will stick around in the console space until streaming is common and accepted by many. There just isn't any other scenario that makes sense to me...but who knows.

Microsoft want to push gamepass, they need all the revenue possible from that transaction. PC gamepass is decent but not on the level of console gamepass, so they need xbox consoles, or streaming...or another competitor that wants to enter the market that they can partner with for favourable roi. Microsoft won't team up with Sony if the deal benefits Sony too well. Microsoft is a company of pride, like nvidia and Intel...like western businesses and it would really need to make sense for them to sign a deal with Sony....no matter how much we might think Microsoft needs Sony.

The one truth with Microsoft is they are so big, they dont need anyone but consumers to consume.

 

[Varteras]

It definitely is....I don't know where you got this impression.

Not a very big part of revenue. Stalled growth. Cannibalization of sales. That doesn't scream Holy Grail to me. Not in the sense that it is so important that it would dissuade them from putting their games on other platforms. What we're seeing is that GamePass just hasn't been the answer.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Not a very big part of revenue. Stalled growth. Cannibalization of sales. That doesn't scream Holy Grail to me. Not in the sense that it is so important that it would dissuade them from putting their games on other platforms. What we're seeing is that GamePass just hasn't been the answer.

It's becuase you are looking at a short term 18 month window vs a 20 odd year plan from Microsoft. Try to think a little bigger. Gamepass has stalled becuase xbox stalled over the last 18 months.

They've just closed a 70 billion dollar deal for gamepass and revenue growth.

 

[Varteras]

It's becuase you are looking at a short term 18 month window vs a 20 odd year plan from Microsoft. Try to think a little bigger. Gamepass has stalled becuase xbox stalled over the last 18 months.

They've just closed a 70 billion dollar deal for gamepass and revenue growth.

Xbox has not just stalled for 18 months. Open your eyes. Xbox has stalled for over a decade and has been behind for over 20 years. They're in a terrible position and it's not looking to get any better any time soon. That $70 billion dollar deal can work just fine for them if they drop hardware and/or drop GamePass.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Xbox has not stalled for 18 months. Open your eyes. Xbox has stalled for over a decade and has been behind for over 20 years. They're in a terrible position and it's not looking to get any better any time soon. That $70 billion dollar deal can work just fine for them if they drop hardware and/or drop GamePass.

If they drop gamepass? Cmon, man.

Microsoft has failed for 20 years becuase it hasn't defeated playstation?

Do you think businesses just give up if they are third, its all about making money. Xbox is making more revenue each year than it ever has.....if failing upwards is failing to you then fair play.

There are plenty of businesses that thrive and aren't first within their market.

Think of car manufacturers, damn think of any business at all. If you are seeing growth you are doing well. You should always compare your business to how it performed the year before and xbox, as a whole is performing well. Should it be performing far better? Damn right. They need big blockbuster games and to make moves to grow their hardware business.

If Sony can afford to cut the price of playstation by 100 pounds for 3 months to try and hit their yearly targets, Microsoft should be willing to cut their hardware prices to make a dent in the market. Which it finally looks like they have.

Saying they have failed for 20 years just makes me not want to entertain a conversation with you. They've provided excellent games in those years and shaped the industry with xbox live, achievements, arcade / indie games focus. Backwards compatibility. Cross generation support. Excellent controllers. Controllers for the disabled. Accessibility.

 

[Varteras]

If they drop gamepass? Cmon, man.

Yes. They could drop GamePass tomorrow, more specifically the Day 1 Microsoft games portion of it, and that $70 billion dollar deal would still work just fine for revenue. Why? Because Activision's revenue was already as much as it is without it. They also spent that much money for mobile gaming, right?

Microsoft has failed for 20 years becuase it hasn't defeated playstation?

We can sit here all night and play word games if you want. I didn't say they "failed" in all that time. I said they were "behind". Facts are that Xbox has been behind for over 20 years and these last 10 years have been brutal. Getting worse. The console market is not kind to more than two consoles. History proves that. Only once did three consoles succeed relative to each other and it was a perfect storm scenario.

Yeah. Microsoft is all about that revenue. And when your console has been as far behind as it's been for this long and getting worse, dropping what you've been doing and putting your games on other platforms starts looking like an attractive option.

Saying they have failed for 20 years just makes me not want to entertain a conversation with you.

I don't care. Because, quite frankly, a conversation with someone who wants to get butthurt over facts and possibilities, and put words in my mouth, because they refuse to entertain the idea that a plastic box that has been getting its shit pushed in forever now could leave the market, isn't really a conversation worth having.

 

[Crayon]

Game pass can fail or just put on life support in case the time comes and they can get along fine just making games. ABK was making plenty of money and bethesda needed some help but could make plenty.

And I feel like I'm on crazy pills but nobody seems to notice the one thing they have going on that isn't a dumpster fire is just giving valve 30% and selling games on steam like normal people. They could sell any game they choose on playstation the exact same way. They don't have to throw away the money that ABK would have made on there in the first place. Then if game pass fails or has to simmer for awhile they are prepared.

 

[Varteras]

Game pass can fail or just put on life support in case the time comes and they can get along fine just making games. ABK was making plenty of money and bethesda needed some help but could make plenty.

And I feel like I'm on crazy pills but nobody seems to notice the one thing they have going on that isn't a dumpster fire is just giving valve 30% and selling games on steam like normal people. They could sell any game they choose on playstation the exact same way. They don't have to throw away the money that ABK would have made on there in the first place. Then if game pass fails or has to simmer for awhile they are prepared.

Yeah. This is really what has been pointed out. That Microsoft Gaming, especially after the ABK deal, could drop Xbox and/or GamePass and be doing just fine. Likely better with their games being on consoles with far larger install bases.

 

[Crayon]

Yeah. This is really what has been pointed out. That Microsoft Gaming, especially after the ABK deal, could drop Xbox and/or GamePass and be doing just fine. Likely better with their games being on consoles with far larger install bases.

The whole concept of buying a platform agnostic publisher and cutting off a massive amount of it's revenue stream to build your first party resources is not a great idea. All to sell consoles with your name on it instead of the other guy's name on it? They have no problem with steam and I would like to hear any reason that having a console is important at this point.

 

[Varteras]

The whole concept of buying a platform agnostic publisher and cutting off a massive amount of it's revenue stream to build your first party resources is not a great idea. All to sell consoles with your name on it instead of the other guy's name on it? They have no problem with steam and I would like to hear any reason that having a console is important at this point.

Frankly, I've yet to have it adequately argued to me why anything more than PlayStation and Nintendo need to exist in the console space. It always devolves into "Sony bad".

 

[gerth666]

Yes. They could drop GamePass tomorrow, more specifically the Day 1 Microsoft games portion of it, and that $70 billion dollar deal would still work just fine for revenue. Why? Because Activision's revenue was already as much as it is without it. They also spent that much money for mobile gaming, right?



We can sit here all night and play word games if you want. I didn't say they "failed" in all that time. I said they were "behind". Facts are that Xbox has been behind for over 20 years and these last 10 years have been brutal. Getting worse. The console market is not kind to more than two consoles. History proves that. Only once did three consoles succeed relative to each other and it was a perfect storm scenario.

Yeah. Microsoft is all about that revenue. And when your console has been as far behind as it's been for this long and getting worse, dropping what you've been doing and putting your games on other platforms starts looking like an attractive option.



I don't care. Because, quite frankly, a conversation with someone who wants to get butthurt over facts and possibilities, and put words in my mouth, because they refuse to entertain the idea that a plastic box that has been getting its shit pushed in forever now could leave the market, isn't really a conversation worth having.

And it's difficult to have a serious conversation with someone who is so clearly invested in the brand. You have the patience of a saint

 

[Astray]

Jez doesn't know anything that isn't spoonfed to him by his MS contacts. This isn't gonna be a blanket announcement or story.

This.

Microsoft is not Sega, they aren't on the verge of bankruptcy (which necessitates communicating with shareholders), so they have the time and luxury of crafting a narrative that isn't "our ship is sinking we do this or we die". They have a lot of optionality that's available to them right now, especially after they locked up ABK.

I personally expect some waffle about taking Xbox beyond the confines of console exclusivity and growing the ecosystem etc etc when we all play we all win etc etc.

IMO, the earliest realistic tell would be:

- The pricing of any new Xbox hardware that comes out, if they price it at like $800-1000, that would mean that they're going with the Surface strategy of trying to make a profit on hardware and don't want to loss-lead themselves into another console fight.

- The "level" of 3P releases that happen on Nintendo or Sony hardware (e.g. releasing any kind of Halo or Gears stuff is not the same as releasing Deathloop 2 or New Spyro or even Starfield, the perception of their strategy will hit differently depends on what they imo). If they decide to only port the small stuff, that means they still retain hope for their 2026 new gen thing.