Ummm… the console would need to fundamentally change for that to happen. Its not like they can run off the shelf PC versions of these games.
I don’t understand Xbox at all now.
They could if they just offered an upgrade to Windows for the current consoles. Which functionally shouldn't be that difficult.
This is just another stab at Apple. Gotta turn the knife as often as you can.
I don't think this has anything to do with Apple, at least I hope not. I'm trying to assume Phil is being genuine here and not trying to take a dig at Apple or use that whole frankly bogus (IMO) lawsuit as a piggyback to force similar things in the console industry.
Because if that happens, there won't be enough ire in the universe to contain my ether.
In the future consoles will have multiple stores. And that's a good thing.
That future's at least two decades away if not longer, and nothing will ever legally force consoles to do this because they are proprietary designs with proprietary tech owned by specific companies who use a subsidization model to sell many units cheaply to customers that make up the losses on hardware with software & services under the domain of the platform holder to offset the subsidization which is required for driving mass market adoption that benefits software sales & service growth at many millions.
If the government tries screwing that up, they will kill the entire gaming market and collapse total revenue and profits for all companies. The hardware will get more expensive and that doesn't mean the software necessarily becomes cheaper to counterbalance it. It's not like multiple publishers can't simply happenstance upon a price range where they all are happy with and as long as certain things are avoided, it could never be proven is collusion or an anticompetitive practice like price-fixing. Even regional pricing, which is used with PC storefronts today, could be used to set market prices however publishers want even on an "open" platform like PC, and be perfectly fine legally.
I'm all for a Steambox. Series X class hardware that can play everything for less than 600 bucks? Sign me up.
Xbox super series x next XL. $1599.99
Cheaper than a RTX 5090 but using the exact same chip in that 5090.
I don't think that type of system would be $600, it would probably be a good bit more expensive than $600. After all, not locking the store down to the Xbox or Windows stores means less 3P sales revenue and cuts for Microsoft, and the PC-like nature of the device would mean less control over peripherals also meaning less in money on that for Microsoft. So they'd make up for that with a higher price to get a nice profit margin on hardware upfront.
Maybe tying in a partly-subsidized year's worth of Game Pass to those SKUs would be a way to also justify the higher price. Also the higher the price, the less units they'd likely make but since they've been losing money on Xbox consoles for years they'd probably welcome that tradeoff (and this approach might actually get them to sell at a better rate than the current Xbox Series consoles are doing).
I said a long time ago I would like an Xbox branded PC. I think it would be cool but I don’t know what scrutiny they would face from regulators if they brought their own PC to market. Maybe a “console” that runs PC apps would face less? That being said, I can’t think of a faster way to put Xbox out of its misery than bringing PC store fronts to the console.
Really don't see how regulators could stop them on this. They already have their own PCs in the form of Surface devices, which can also play games (if you want them to). MS just can't bar other OEMs from making competing gaming-centric PC devices like handhelds or whatever running on Windows, and they should be fine.
When Epic opens a store on Xbox consoles, international organizations will pressure Sony to do the same so that Phil can open an Xbox store on Playstation
Regulatory bodies can go eat fecal matter because what Microsoft does with their consoles has absolutely no bearing on what Sony or Nintendo should do with theirs. Consoles in the traditional sense are not open-platform devices, and are not based on open standards. They also arguably can only provide their offerings at the scale they do by taking a subsidization model where the real money's made on software & services at the control of the platform holder who is putting up all of the financial R&D, and risks in production & promotion/distribution of the devices and OS, services etc.
They should have the right to operate in a walled garden business model and this even goes for companies like Apple as well; if the PC-compatible were a software & hardware proprietary design owned by Microsoft they could have done the same with that market, but it wasn't, yet they tried to anyway. That's where they messed up with all the 'Wintel' stuff in the late '80s and through the '90s that got them sued for antitrust back then.
Now theoretically, Microsoft could do that going forward if they developed a fork of Windows that was somehow compatible with the Windows kernel but otherwise its own proprietary OS and paired that with gaming-centric PC devices that took off and sold like crazy, but I don't think that's either legally or technically possible. That hypothetical OS would have to share zero code with Windows and yet somehow be 100% compatible with Windows applications (likely through emulation, like WINE on Linux), and any closed control MS exerted could only apply to that hypothetical OS, not Windows, of which they have decades-spanning contracts with various OEMs and other companies in licensing for, etc.
And even so, it would only be worth it if tied to a device line that was widely successful, and it would also kind of defeat the purpose of Windows and growing its presence in the gaming market. Like, they're still supporting a legacy OS that they own but both licenses out to tons of companies and has tons of people creating apps for on free licenses, but also want to push a different OS that's somehow 100% compatible with Windows apps while sharing zero code with Windows, simply to push their own hardware in the market to have grounds of similar closed ecosystem control that Apple does with iPhone/iOS, or Sony does with PlayStation or Nintendo does with Switch? At this point that just wouldn't make a lot of sense IMO.
So yeah, Microsoft opening up Xbox devices to basically become PCs should have little to no bearing on what Sony or Nintendo "should" do WRT similar for their consoles, because MS are basically shifting Xbox hardware to a wholly different business model to do so. And that might work for them, but regulators have to understand that different companies will do what they need that's specific to their own products. You can't force industries to upend their entire business models altogether just because one company in that industry is changing their business model to salvage & revamp their presence in that industry.