Esparadrapo
Banned
20% higher isn't far higher?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Everyone says how much Xbox is struggling, but their revenue is up? What am I missing?
- Thread starter jcorb
- Start date
ForAcademicPurposes
Member
What are you missing? Software.
Team Andromeda
Member
Well Unless I'm mistaken the Series X was out in 2022 and the 360 console was long dead.
Minecraft doesn't say XBox to me, but it brings in the money
RetroGamingUK
Member
Team Andromeda
Member
Woopah
Member
Agreed, Ubisoft don't really need to sell hardware. But for MS/Sony/Nintendo, selling hardware has a major positive effect on their financial performance. The more hardware they sell, the better it is for them.
So it is in their best interests to sell as much hardware as possible. Therfore, they make games to push hardware sales.
For example, we saw TOTK have a major impact on Switch hardware sales, and we saw Spiderman have have a major impact on PS4 sales.
Neither of these games are likely to move that much hardware.
So if it would have been so easy to turn Psychonauts and Astrobot into major system sellers, why didn't MS and Sony do it?
Woopah
Member
If you want to say they have higher revenue now then yes that is true.
But we can't make definite statements about profit as MS doesn't report segment-level profits or losses anymore.
And yes, the Entertainment & Devices Division made a profit of $1.324 billion in 2011.
Last edited:
They've engaged in a whole bunch of moves since then as to what the division that includes Xbox actually comprises, for those very rare moments where they may show actual profit/loss versus their usual standby if a big revenue number with no idea on costs.
Back in that time, it included a bunch of other things, including mobile related patents:
Interesting that they talk about strengths being exclusive content...the glory days versus the multiplatform future they seem to have accepted. (Bolding is mine)
"We believe the success of gaming and entertainment consoles is determined by the availability of games for the console, providing exclusive game content that gamers seek, the computational power and reliability of the console, and the ability to create new experiences via online services, downloadable content, and peripherals. In addition to Nintendo and Sony, our businesses compete with both Apple and Google in offering content products and services to the consumer. We believe the Xbox entertainment platform is positioned well against competitive products and services based on significant innovation in hardware architecture, user interface, developer tools, online gaming and entertainment services, and continued strong exclusive content from our own game franchises as well as other digital content offerings.
Woopah
Member
Ultimately the segment Xbox is in doesn't matter too much, because they don't report profit for any of them.They've engaged in a whole bunch of moves since then as to what the division that includes Xbox actually comprises, for those very rare moments where they may show actual profit/loss versus their usual standby if a big revenue number with no idea on costs.
Back in that time, it included a bunch of other things, including mobile related patents:
Interesting that they talk about strengths being exclusive content...the glory days versus the multiplatform future they seem to have accepted. (Bolding is mine)
"We believe the success of gaming and entertainment consoles is determined by the availability of games for the console, providing exclusive game content that gamers seek, the computational power and reliability of the console, and the ability to create new experiences via online services, downloadable content, and peripherals. In addition to Nintendo and Sony, our businesses compete with both Apple and Google in offering content products and services to the consumer. We believe the Xbox entertainment platform is positioned well against competitive products and services based on significant innovation in hardware architecture, user interface, developer tools, online gaming and entertainment services, and continued strong exclusive content from our own game franchises as well as other digital content offerings.
It made perfect sense for them to talk about exclusive content at that time, as they were seeing a lot of success with Kinect (which was obviously exclusive) plus some big first party games.
yurinka
Member
That platform as a too small market share to make profitable exclusive AAA games for it. They make way more money in the other platforms. That platform causes loses due to selling hardware at a loss, their OS, servers etc.
For them is a better business to get rid of it. To focus their games on the other platforms because it's where the money is.
To let 3rd party hardware manufacturers make themselves -not MS- the up coming PC handheld/home console shaped hardware. To ask other MS division to make a Windows mode adapted to small portable screens and tvs using gamepad as primary control input method.
In PC. Which I assume will include Xbox 'consoles' made by non-MS PC hardware manufacturers.
Almost nobody buys in that store, so won't miss that cut. They can kill that store and keep the PC one (moving your library etc there) and use it for their upcoming 'consoles'.
And well, regarding the PC one they should merge the different ones they may have (Xbox, Windows, battle.net, gaming merchandising stores of their different companies, etc).
mayham2199
Member
I don't think MS can just move you library to PC and call it a day. There's licensing issues I think they would need to discuss with 3rd party publishers. That's the issue they are having with cloud right now is not all 3rd party publishers want to give up that license just to benefit MS.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Microsoft is good at spending money to buy success or in Xbox case, mediocrity.
yurinka
Member
Sure, most of the games from past generations won't work and to add more old games will need to be relicensed, as happens in the BC of Series X etc.
They may do something like allowing you to have your old Xbox games in the cloud -if you pay the expensive sub-, and improve the emulation to make it easier to bring back 1st party games and ease the work for 3rd parties (or maybe letting you to put your console disc on a PC and run it, which wouldn't need to be relicensed).
Remember that Sarah Bond created that game preservation team and as of now they haven't done/shown anything.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Woopah
Member
What is this supposed to mean exactly?
mayham2199
Member
I don't even mean past generations. I'm saying if you buy Assassins Creed Shadow on Xbox that doesn't mean you are guaranteed a license for the PC version as well. The same way you aren't just allowed to play it on the cloud because that's what Xbox wants. Xbox needs to get permission from Ubisoft for this. So if Xbox just turns into a PC some of the 3rd party publishers might not be ok with all Xbox users getting a free license to the PC version of the game and they get nothing all to benefit MS and the big changes they make.
vaibhavpisal
Member
I really don’t see why it would be hard for any company to make something like Spiderman.
TOTK, am not sure. To me its comparable to best open world games. So that, one could argue, isn’t as easy to pull off. But I think Mario is doable by any company.
Psychonauts 2 was an example of hype difference. Between it and Astro Bot.
There is extra enthusiasm in press for Astro Bot.
Thats an important component, but ultimately is useless as far as my experience is concerned.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Woopah
Member
Those 3 games all sold over 20 million copies. That's not something which is easy. It's something very very difficulty to do.
If it was easy, we'd see it happen all the time. But we don't.
Well Astrobot got very high review scores, so it makes sense there would be extra enthusiasm. Psychonauts 2 did also get pretty good reviews.
But again, neither game is a mega hardware seller by the look of things.
plip.plop
Member
I agree, Candy Crush is the new Tetris.
djjinx2
Member
So Xbox platform doesn't sell games? I personally know at least 5 family members who just purchased FIFA 25, and buy from that store as well as Fortnite too.
I probably spend $60 a year on CoD items too. But I guess no one else would out of the millions of Xbox owners out there amirite. Everyone just feeds off GamePass right gaf?
....
What your saying is Xbox is better off going 3rd party. It's mostly PS owners that say this. You really think closing HW down that all GamePass subscribers will buy a PC and play on there? Fuck no. Hellll no.
GamePass would lose millions of subs. Hell I'd go back to Playstation before buying a PC.
So GamePass lose millions of Subs, and MS loses 30% of all store sales from Xbox platform, sends all its user base to PS and PC right? To save some money they lose at the beginning of a Generation?
Please make it add up for me. I just don't get it Gaf...
vaibhavpisal
Member
If you get all components right you can do it.
-Make straightforward Ubisoft copy pasta.
-Add extra layer of polish.
-Market hell out of it.
-Get press extra excited for your games. By whatever means necessary.
Now compare this to something like Sea of Thieves.
How would you make something as successful as Sea of Thieves.
What are the components?
Psychonauts 2 is great game I take it?
Its more imaginative, creative, no homages using as a crutch, proper exploration etc.
yurinka
Member
It sell games, but little compared to Switch, PS and particularly PC.
They have been 3rd party (in rival consoles) since they bought Minecraft. They will continue being 1st party on Windows/their PC store if they kill their own console.
The number of subs is just a vanity metric. The important thing is the revenue and profit or loses that they generate.
In the current case they put all their first party games there day one (which means hundreds or thosands of millions not made in sales) and spend a billion per year to sign 3rd party games for it. With their current revenue from GP can't make a profit for it. So for them is better to reduce the number of subbers because would mean less loses.
And also to reduce the number of people who gets their games day one to improve their game sales, so profitability too.
So to have a healthier business for them is better to don't put their games day one on GP or to do so only in the most expensive tier (to keep their promise of keeping them day one on GP) even if it means to reduce their amount of subbers.
Yes. But I assume MS can figure out something that is legally ok without requiring extra licensing from 3rd parties, like saying something like that now any PCs running Windows 14 are an Xbox console with full BC and that will feature inside free "virtual" (emulators of) Xbox OG, Xbox 360, Xbox One and Xbox Series X consoles that will allow them to run all their digital or physical games that still run there.
So in this case players would be able to play the Xbox games -Xbox versions, not PC ones- of the games they did own in old consoles. Most players, probably only a few hundred thousands (being optimistic a few millions), who bougth them won't play these games, most may only play a few during 10 minutes or so. This is a tiny portion of the global userbase and global playtime, so 3rd parties won't care because won't affect their revenue and will be legal.
Last edited:
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
Didn't they increased the price of game pass twice this past year alone?
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I could be wrong but it seems like it’s saying Sony has much better console sales than MS, as evident by the cars, but MS has much more money or value than Sony, as evident by the run down house versus mansion.
BattleScar
Member
Microsoft Gaming is doing ok.
Xbox the platform is a zombie at this point.
Xbox the platform is a zombie at this point.
Woopah
Member
If it's that straightforward then that is what MS should have done in preparation for this generation. Gone to some of their teams and said "make straightforward copy pastas and add an extra layer of polish, then we'll get the press excited for them."
That way they could have easily had some mega hits that pushed Xbox Series hardware sales.
Well that's not the case specifically for gaming revenue, so I guess they are talking about MS as a whole?
Last edited:
Halo is Back
Member
And that's why so many were laid off. To trim the fat and cut costs like a true American corporate greed
vaibhavpisal
Member
They would never do that.
They focus on engagement. Getting players hyped up is counterproductive to achieving good engagement. I hope you can see why.
They got a ready made super hyped game in Starfield. They carefully completely deflated it by launching in a state. Now, they are slowly building it up. This results in organic player base build up, that want to play the game for what it is.
I think they are willing to eschew console sales to achieve this. This also means they will never outsell competitors who do everything they can to achieve higher sales.
It also results in lower expenses across the board, so them making profit still is not very outlandish.
Hotel Security
Member
Does Microsoft even care? I feel their own practices have been what's pushing this away. They made a point this Gen to make every exclusive game also available for PC. For Sony owners like me, this means I don't even need an Xbox if there's an exclusive I want...but they barely have exclusives now anyway. Plus they're pushing GamePass so they'd rather have people on that and paying subscription than buying a console anyway.
Frankly, I've never cared about them much. I always liked the Sony exclusives more anyway. I'm glad I never got involved with them since it never seemed like they really cared about traditional gaming...the Xbox has always seemed to me as this gateway for them to push other MS products on people...
Last edited:
mayham2199
Member
I thought they were great during the 360 era but they lost me after the xbox one reveal.
Shane89
Member
manufacturing prices are 'almost' the same, across all companies, considering that the manufacturing place is the same, they were even selling it at 100 more $ compared to the PS4.
It's a BS or it was related the launch time only.
Last edited:
Except the Xbox one was a series of compromises, with the initially mandatory kinect bundled in. And then you had the HDMI pass thru/overlay parts for the cable tv integration etc. Ultimately ended up costing more to build despite using cheaper DDR3 etc.
Microsoft’s Xbox One Costs $90 More to Build Than Sony’s PS4, Teardown Shows
Another unprofitable gaming system hits the shelves.
allthingsd.com
I think we've seen over all the PS generations that Sony does better in terms of optimizing design to allow for cost/efficiency improvements etc, for new process nodes. After all, designing consumer electronics is one of their core competencies.
MS has a history of poor hardware decisions when it comes to consoles, OG Xbox had the power input just soldered in place so plenty of smoke and potentially flames when this solder joints failed. I think in that case they ended up sending AC power cables with arc fault protection instead of doing a recall. Finally they started riveting the ac input socket in future revisions.
In the 360 gen, MS decided to save some money and do the integration themselves, saw very high console failure rates during early stages and decided to release them anyway. then deny deny deny any problems until finally coughing up for RROD replacement (often long after replacements had been purchased).
Last edited:
GoldenEye98
posts news as their odd job
I feel like Xbox hardware has gotten progressively better though. OG Xbox One was overkill in terms of size/heat considerations because of what happened with Xbox 360 but then Xbox One S slimmed down while integrating PSU. Xbox One X again more power but relatively compact design with integrated PSU. Xbox Series consoles while simple on the outside are still good in terms of thermals/noise. The Series X in particular is a pretty clever design.
PS4 was better design than OG Xbox One...but ever since then I would give the edge to Xbox in terms of hardware design.
PS4 was better design than OG Xbox One...but ever since then I would give the edge to Xbox in terms of hardware design.
Woopah
Member
Sorry for the late reply!
Sony and Nintendo make popular games that get players hyped and sell 10 million units, 20 million units or even more. This in turn pushes hardware sales, which leads to growth in other revenue streams like third party software sales, MTX and subscriptions.
What is counterproductive about that?
So MS could be more successful, but they are intentially choosing to make less revenue? What do they achieve by deciding to sell fewer consoles?
What makes you think MS has lower costs than Nintendo or Sony?
LMJ
Member
It is quite a sexy piece of Kit, at the end of the day that means nothing if they're not selling though.
Sony bet big on the SSD drive, and clearly it's working for them because it's been able to hold its own against the arguably much more powerful on paper Xbox SX, as we have been well aware this entire generation.
vaibhavpisal
Member
I dont think this is good method of player acquisition. Perpetual hype results in getting burned out and disillusioned from gaming.
I think gaming should come naturally, like picking a remote and watching a movie. Do you get hyped for reading a book or watching a movie or a music album?
If you do, it almost always results in worse experience.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Only if the game ends up disappointing.
Now who’s guilty of repeatedly hyping games to the high heavens this last few years and failing to deliver?
Hint: it ain’t Sony
Last edited:
damiank
Member
Yes, thursday for Sony, friday for Nintendo and big party over weekend
Woopah
Member
Nintendo has been hyping people on Mario and Zelda for 40 years, and those franchises now have more acquired players than ever before. How many decades does it take before the burn out and disillusionment takes effect?
Amd yes, studios definitely want people to get hyped and excited for their movies. If the movie is good, it's nor a worse experience.
If MS are unable to deliver games that are both popular and quality, then that is something for them to fix.
vaibhavpisal
Member
This comment was not directed at Nintendo. Their games take time and give enough breather to players so burnout doesn’t happen.
I think we need to agree to disagree here. How MS is launching their games, its working for me. Am playing them for sometime now and not feeling fatigued.
Last thing I want is them taking Halo in direction of God of War or Halo 2-> Halo 3. Been there done that. Keep making forge, adding new modes to keep things interesting.
Or Starfield, keep updating, once its built enough I will join for another lengthy play through.
Zacfoldor
Member
It's also a value proposition. Like Xbox is missing these games:
Wukong
Astrobot
Rebirth
Helldivers 2
Stellar Blade
But Xbox is always missing games or they are late, like BG3, and then the games that do come out are really like super disappointing, like Starfield, and Senua 2.
Then it feels like Sony is reinvesting in the PS5 generation with the pro and keeping it fresh, exciting and new. Feels like Xbox is trying to rush Xbox Series consoles into the grave.
Then add the removal of the value proposition, by jacking up the prices of gamepass and removing day and date from the lower tier JUST on Xbox(while PC gets preferential treatment).
I know many of you game on Xbox but if you had the gen to do over again would you not swap to PC or PS5? I sure regret my 2 XSX I purchased(one for me one for my bro). They are dust collectors that play FFXIII with no gamepass subs anymore.
MS does not know how to make good games and they don't know how to recruit talent. They buy people out after they are past their prime on the way downhill, and they get their downhill games and wonder why nobody gets excited for them. Nobody else does that to this extent. It's a basic misunderstanding that you can buy an artist. By the time the artist is big enough to get on their radar, their best work is already behind them. You think an artist is gonna give you their best stuff after they sell out? That's not how it works.
Albert Einstein said: “A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so.”
So is true with games. Gotta raise talent from babies can't just buy out big names. They get lazy and stuck in their ways when they get old and rich from your buyout money. They already got famous with a lot of hard work. Now they want to oursource that and be rich, do little, and bask in fame. It is hard to get nose to the grindstone work from a famous old dev you bought because of a game they made in their 20s. Gotta farm them from babies like Stardew Valley and give them a canvas to paint their first game. Their desperate glory will put out some of the best games you've ever imagined because of that search for desperate glory that all young people have when finding their way in life. This young developer is where innovation is often borne. Many people understand this but MS does not because corporate has no nuance. They just buy big names so they can get the IP and advertise the name. The work has suffered. The misconception that they can "just buy talent" instead of nurture it from within the organization has been their biggest weakness and if it continues it will be their eventual downfall.
Wukong
Astrobot
Rebirth
Helldivers 2
Stellar Blade
But Xbox is always missing games or they are late, like BG3, and then the games that do come out are really like super disappointing, like Starfield, and Senua 2.
Then it feels like Sony is reinvesting in the PS5 generation with the pro and keeping it fresh, exciting and new. Feels like Xbox is trying to rush Xbox Series consoles into the grave.
Then add the removal of the value proposition, by jacking up the prices of gamepass and removing day and date from the lower tier JUST on Xbox(while PC gets preferential treatment).
I know many of you game on Xbox but if you had the gen to do over again would you not swap to PC or PS5? I sure regret my 2 XSX I purchased(one for me one for my bro). They are dust collectors that play FFXIII with no gamepass subs anymore.
MS does not know how to make good games and they don't know how to recruit talent. They buy people out after they are past their prime on the way downhill, and they get their downhill games and wonder why nobody gets excited for them. Nobody else does that to this extent. It's a basic misunderstanding that you can buy an artist. By the time the artist is big enough to get on their radar, their best work is already behind them. You think an artist is gonna give you their best stuff after they sell out? That's not how it works.
Albert Einstein said: “A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so.”
So is true with games. Gotta raise talent from babies can't just buy out big names. They get lazy and stuck in their ways when they get old and rich from your buyout money. They already got famous with a lot of hard work. Now they want to oursource that and be rich, do little, and bask in fame. It is hard to get nose to the grindstone work from a famous old dev you bought because of a game they made in their 20s. Gotta farm them from babies like Stardew Valley and give them a canvas to paint their first game. Their desperate glory will put out some of the best games you've ever imagined because of that search for desperate glory that all young people have when finding their way in life. This young developer is where innovation is often borne. Many people understand this but MS does not because corporate has no nuance. They just buy big names so they can get the IP and advertise the name. The work has suffered. The misconception that they can "just buy talent" instead of nurture it from within the organization has been their biggest weakness and if it continues it will be their eventual downfall.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
Then Microsoft can do that too and easily increase console sales right?
How you or I personally feel doesn't really matter when it comes to sales.
I've been saying that MS needed to publish some very popular exclusives to increase hardware sales.
You've said that MS could do that easily, but instead are choosing to have worse hardware sales and worse software sales.
If that is the case, we've seen the negative impacts of that choice on their business.
Astray
Member
One of the dumbest statements I've ever seen on any forum. They both are both leaders in game design, game tech and organizational support.
If it's so straightforward then why can't Microsoft do better?
Woopah
Member
Acquisitions involve many many developers. Their employer being under new ownership does not automatically lead to a decline in the quality of their work.
Developers can leave of course, but it is absolutely true that you can buy talent. We've seen successful acquisitions in the industry before.
vaibhavpisal
Member
MS does better game design.
Case in point: Grounded, Sea of Thieves.
I will have to make a thread to explain this though.
You are still unable to explain why they cannot make these.
Most of the game design is retread.
Most of art, music, story etc they can hire devs and pay them to do it.
Why is this impossible?
It is so hard - but why?
Woopah
Member
Because putting out exclusive games that sell 10 million or more is not easy. You need a big IP, good word of mouth, interesting gameplay mechanics or some combination of that.
Any publisher would love to continually publish games that sell that well. But getting to that point is very difficult.
If it was easy, we'd see all publishers achieving that all the time. But we don't, because it's challenging. We see major games sell less than 10 million often.
Astray
Member
They make better service games (which isn't easy, nothing is easy in this industry btw), but it isn't like Nintendo and Sony haven't ever made good multiplayer games: Helldivers 2 and Splatoon both exist and are big hits.
What you are calling straightforward was basically gushed over by Microsoft themselves in a leaked internal review of TLOU2 (a series I never play).
Microsoft Leaked Internal Review Calls The Last of Us 2 "Significantly Ahead" of Anything on Console & PC
The internal Microsoft The Last of Us 2 review has leaked, and it calls Naughty Dog's game "significantly ahead" of anything out on consoles & PCs.
mp1st.com
vaibhavpisal
Member
Publishers don’t do it cause economics don’t work out for them. Investing 200 million for making 20 hrs linear game, only a platform holder gonna do it.
They make better service games (which isn't easy, nothing is easy in this industry btw), but it isn't like Nintendo and Sony haven't ever made good multiplayer games: Helldivers 2 and Splatoon both exist and are big hits.
What you are calling straightforward was basically gushed over by Microsoft themselves in a leaked internal review of TLOU2 (a series I never play).
Microsoft Leaked Internal Review Calls The Last of Us 2 "Significantly Ahead" of Anything on Console & PC
The internal Microsoft The Last of Us 2 review has leaked, and it calls Naughty Dog's game "significantly ahead" of anything out on consoles & PCs.mp1st.com
They said it had astonishing polish. Everything was perfect. Which is true cause its a $200 million 20 hrs game.
But also criticised it for not having any quality that drives engagement. Have people play and enjoy it for long.
Also about Grounded/ Sea of Thieves- thats oversimplification. They have deep gameplay hooks that people look for. Would be considered very well designed even for single player titles.
Last edited:
Astray
Member
My entire point was that this is not a simple thing. Even the games you deride as simple are actually beyond Microsoft's grasp at this point, to the point where they "needed" to buy +$80b worth of studios.
I have no idea why you transitioned to "engagement" as your metric, and then proceeded to ignore the examples of Helldivers2 and Splatoon, which are infinitely more relevant if we're talking engagement.