MS still wants developers to put games on their consoles, as a developer what would be the point?
- Thread starter PJX
- Start date
bitbydeath
Member
Next-gen will only need the PC version, Xbox software will just be BC only.
For current-gen there is still an install base to cater towards.
For current-gen there is still an install base to cater towards.
Killjoy-NL
Member
Xbox pays publishers/devs for games they put on GP, so for a publisher/dev it might be feasible despite Xbox dying.
The question is how sustainable it is for Xbox.
The question is how sustainable it is for Xbox.
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
Next gen xbox will likely get majority of its games via steam.
Bigger studios I believe could still optimise for hardware. Its up in the air at the moment. Will be clear once hardware releases.
Also note, a lot of devs consider steam deck to be important market. Its sold something like 6 million.
Smaller install base systems usually have core gamers as customers entirely. Thats valuable and will always be addressed.
Bigger studios I believe could still optimise for hardware. Its up in the air at the moment. Will be clear once hardware releases.
Also note, a lot of devs consider steam deck to be important market. Its sold something like 6 million.
Smaller install base systems usually have core gamers as customers entirely. Thats valuable and will always be addressed.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
You can't pretend all platforms are equally viable and that there aren't criteria that need to be met for publication there are equally easy to implement.
For example, right now Xbox is -as far as I'm aware- still demanding parity between Series S and X. This is a significant challenge in some cases and so if/when the install-base isn't that large its an obvious disincentive.
Its always going to be about opportunity cost and return on investment; the former not just be about money but generally about time/manpower required to port and support.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Series X - S parity clause might be big reason why studios are putting games on system.
Keep in mind, suits decide which system games release on, not devs. Suits would be interested in letting the devs learn how to optimise properly. Good for the industry.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
The only good reason is that it shouldn't be that much work to make an Xbox port if you're already developing a PlayStation game. But then you get cucked by some Series S requirement and regret your life choices. But maybe next-gen won't be so bad...
Those 25 to 30 million users don't really buy games though. They want it on GP.
Killjoy-NL
Member
The only reason for that is because Xbox pays upfront out of their own pocket.
Current generation yes, it does seem like the risk vs reward isn't there. But publishers and developers most likely will be fully on board with the next X-box generation, at least to start. Short term memory and forgiveness. How many times can MS fool everyone, probably at least once more. If MS makes the port's even easier between PC and whatever box or hand held they release. Maybe MS will provide additional incentives, who knows.
Nintendo is for nintendo exclusives, Xbox is for the gamepass machine. Damage is already done imho.
Nintendo is for nintendo exclusives, Xbox is for the gamepass machine. Damage is already done imho.
Killjoy-NL
Member
PlayStaytion
Member
Xbox users are more active and they've reached 200m. As an Xbox series user, being more active from playing trad games will obviously narrow my view about what's new. The odds are any 40+ hrs game and done well will grab my attention, any great story telling like the original walking dead or the wolf among us between 10 to 25 hrs of gameplay will grab my attention immediately. IMHO, you either make a big western game or an eastern game that appeals to western audience.
Take a bag of money that covers xbox dev costs. Done. Otherwise, yeah supporting series S seems like a costly expense that may well also compromise the vision for your game, with limited or zero upside…particularly if Sony are willing to throw a bag of cash your way, or some free marketing to make the decision easier for you.
I expect their next console will just be a steam box tho, so if it works on a pc of comparable stats it'll work on the X-steam or whatever they call it.
I expect their next console will just be a steam box tho, so if it works on a pc of comparable stats it'll work on the X-steam or whatever they call it.
Last edited:
Yeah, sure, MS pays each and every studio and publisher (which is practically 99,8% of the publishers and Studios in the industry) to release their games on XBOX...LOL.
The reality is that they simply do it because it's profitable in one way or another and not just because "MS pays them to be on GamePass" (the number of third-party games on GP isn't even 2% of the total games released on the platform)
-30 million users, among whom there are many hardcore users. If games are released when a platform doesn't reach those numbers in its first few years of life, imagine not doing it now
.-Easy and cheap ports to make.
-Xbox isn't just about consoles. Publishing on Xbox adds an Xcloud version that can be played on countless devices.
-Extra advertising and marketing.
But hey!! It's better to believe that MS pays the +1000 publishers and studios that release games each year or that those publishers or studios release their games for charity
And you know that the percentage of third-party games on GP is equivalent to 2-3% of the total number of games released annually on Xbox? What do you think happens to the remaining 97%?
(I already answered you anyway)
RetroGamingUK
Member
The next Xbox is a branded Windows PC.
So courtesy of Steam you'll have no issues getting games on it.
So courtesy of Steam you'll have no issues getting games on it.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
There is still millions of consoles to sell to.
Next gen, will be different though. So, MS needs to come up with some way to run PC ports
Next gen, will be different though. So, MS needs to come up with some way to run PC ports
Vlodril
Member
Yeah, sure, MS pays each and every studio and publisher (which is practically 99,8% of the publishers and Studios in the industry) to release their games on XBOX...LOL.
The reality is that they simply do it because it's profitable in one way or another and not just because "MS pays them to be on GamePass" (the number of third-party games on GP isn't even 2% of the total games released on the platform)
-30 million users, among whom there are many hardcore users. If games are released when a platform doesn't reach those numbers in its first few years of life, imagine not doing it now
-Easy and cheap ports to make.
-Xbox isn't just about consoles. Publishing on Xbox adds an Xcloud version that can be played on countless devices.
-Extra advertising and marketing.
But hey!! It's better to believe that MS pays the +1000 publishers and studios that release games each year or that those publishers or studios release their games for charity
30 million users who don't buy games. I mean if you want to put a game on xbox at this point the only reason would be to put it on gamepass. Especially if you are a smaller studio with minimal resources.
Baemono
Member
Why Nintendo got barely any 3rd party support since the N64 ?
Killjoy-NL
Member
They barely sell on Xbox. Which questions the viability of the Xbox brand in general, hence the OP.And you know that the percentage of third-party games on GP is equivalent to 2-3% of the total number of games released annually on Xbox? What do you think happens to the remaining 97%?
(I already answered you anyway)
Last edited:
LOL, just repeating the same idea doesn't make it true.
I repeat, third-party games released on GP only represent 2-3% of the total released on XBOX. So you need to explain why 99% of studios and publishers continue to release their games on XBOX (in fact, it's the Xbox generation where the most games of all types, genres, and origins are released on Xbox consoles).... And no, GamePass or the fact that MS pays everyone to do so isn't a reason, much less "the only one."
Signalis
Member
I can answer that for you.
A few years ago, the company I worked for looked into porting a specific game to another platform shortly after it released on 2 other platforms. The same argument was used as you just did.
Well, we just do the porting, but it ended up getting cancelled. Why? Well, as many platforms as possible isn't as straight forward as you think. Porting or multiple platforms costs more manpower/time = money
And then patching, approvals, changes (quirks) need to be factored in as well.
So let's say the platform we're porting to isn't going to do the same sales as the other 2 platforms do, let's say
Platform 1 : 237,000 copies sold
Platform 2: 142,000 copies sold
Platform 3: 1000 copies sold
Platform 3 couldn't make up the extra time, approvals, patching etc. because well it all costs money and manpower that can be used on another project or supporting the other 2 platforms.
So, as many platforms as possible isn't always 100% assured more revenue. And Xbox is pretty much dead for smaller developers. As dealing with Microsoft is a nightmare and most of the time not worth it
HRK69
Member
I get where you're coming from, and you're right, porting isn't free, and not every platform guarantees solid sales. But calling Xbox "dead" feels like an overgeneralization
Plenty of indies have done well there, especially with Game Pass expanding reach beyond just console. It's not always the right move, but it's still a valuable ecosystem depending on the game and the deal
And I've seen plenty of devs complain about Nintendo's outdated systems or Sony's notorious red tape, it's often the same problems, just with a different logo
???LOL.
And yet, reality shows that the XSeries generation is seeing many more games of all kinds, genres, origins, and budgets than any previous generation, including the X360....
In the end, everything falls on its own weight.
HRK69
Member
For some, Xbox won't be worth it. For others, especially with Game Pass or cloud reach, it still makes sense. It's not one-size-fits-all, and that's really the point.
Signalis
Member
Believe me, Microsoft is/was a nightmare to get things done with. I am no longer in the game industry. Got a nice job at a big corporate company, it might sound soulless, but I am infinitely happier now.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Because, sometimes, the ROI is just not there.
And we have countless examples. Final Fantasy 16, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth, Black Myth Wukong (the devs are still not rushing to put their game out on Xbox consoles), BG3 devs were happy to postpone the Xbox release as well, and other countless Japanese games.
Each dev evaluates the potential porting / development costs versus the sales forecast on each platform.
Otherwise, why isn't every single developer releasing its games on Mac? Because the porting costs vs. potential sales likely means a negative ROI.
Third-party games released on GamePass represent 2-3% of the total games released on Xbox... That is, according to you, the remaining 98% release games for.... charity??
The reality is that no studio releases games for "charity" and without the incentive to be profitable. And the proof is in the X360 era, where niche games and Big IPs were no released, but today these are released on XSeries. It's the Xbox generation with the best third-party support in history.
Sometimes I think there are people who aren't aware of the catalog and the number of games released annually on XBOX and get carried away by the 2-3 notable cases of games that even end up being released on XSeries and no one remembers them anymore... and hence their idea that "Studios are stopping releasing on XBOX" when, i repite, in reality it is the generation (despite everything) where an Xbox console received the best third-party support in its history and thre is no discussion possible about it
Last edited:
Starbuck2907
Member
Astray
Member
3rd party has definitely improved this gen. But Gamepass deals are almost certainly the reason it did with the non-Conglomerate devs.Third-party games released on GamePass represent 2-3% of the total games released on Xbox... That is, according to you, the remaining 98% release games for.... charity??
The reality is that no studio releases games for "charity" and without the incentive to be profitable. And the proof is in the X360 era, where niche games and Big IPs were no released, but today these are released on XSeries. It's the Xbox generation with the best third-party support in history.
Sometimes I think there are people who aren't aware of the catalog and the number of games released annually on XBOX and get carried away by the 2-3 notable cases of games that even end up being released on XSeries and no one remembers them anymore... and hence their idea that "Studios are stopping releasing on XBOX" when, i repite, in reality it is the generation (despite everything) where an Xbox console received the best third-party support in its history and thre is no discussion possible about it
Your EAs and Ubisofts were always gonna post their titles on Xbox though.
If you are not EA or Ubisoft, and you don't get a gamepass deal then its not really worth it for you to post titles on Xbox rn because the userbase has been thoroughly conditioned not to buy by now, and you're not getting the recompense via gamepass.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Theres like 35 million Xbox Series consoles out there.
The port job is pocket change because the Series console and Playstation are effectively the same hardware (APIs be damned).
While small, leaving out 16% of the console market would be a dumb move if you can do the port job easy.
Different story if it requires you to put in alot of work comparatively, (i imagine thats why quite of few of those funny Chinese games dont both making Xbox versions).
You also have Gamepass and xCloud that come with the Xbox ecosystem.
We have no idea what the nextgen machines are gonna be so be, maybe MS only makes a lower powered device thats marginally better than a Series X but costs less and the PS5 is a monster 1000 dollar console.
How does the market respond to that?
Maybe the Xbox is Nvidia powered and promises to be the greatest revolution with anus tickling technology and the market decides god damn, thats exactly what I need.
We have no idea.
But more seriously if the nextgen machines are similar enough, especially on the Xbox side considering itll likely be DX12x, its basically free money porting the game and getting a few sales from it.
Maybe MS pays you for Gamepass, they seem to be taking the subscription services more seriously than Sony is.
Before you ask:
Switch 150 = 55%
PS5 75 = 26%
XSX 45 = 16%
I assume nextgen wont be that much different.
We come back to the same point: if it's not worth it if you're not on Game Pass... what's the reason for the rest (98% of the XSeries catalog) to exist if that's the case?
And no, "charity" is definitely not a valid reason. The logical reason, as hard as it may be to accept, is that there's a potential profitability in doing so, and the opposite (not publishing) on Xbox is more risky and/or a worse idea than doing so.
Astray
Member
You need to validate that %98 figure btw. Almost every notable new release lands on gamepass.
Anything posted on Xbox is either posted before Gamepass, is published by a major entity that doesn't need/want Gamepass money, or has an opportunity to get gamepass money in the future (at a smaller degree).
Some also got marketing deals too.
Walter Matthau
Member
Those 30m consoles that were sold didn't magically disappear.
ZehDon
Member
Thanks to Microsoft's APIs, if you're making your game for Windows PCs, then you've basically done most of the porting work. The remainder is pretty trivial effort wise. Going digital-only on Xbox makes the most sense.
Also, had a good chuckle at "dead" when the current consoles have a 30m install base.
Also, had a good chuckle at "dead" when the current consoles have a 30m install base.
T-Cake
Member
Surely all the next Xbox will be is a thin client cloud device? Microsoft can promise the technical leap they've been spouting by using PC hardware in datacentres. If that upsets the masses, then they can go to PlayStation or PC to buy a non-cloud version of a MS game. We know Xbox is not really bothered about hardware anymore, just software and services.
Last edited:
It's as easy as clicking on the Xbox Store and seeing what percentage of third-party games are GamePass games.....
No, that's not the case, and that's why I invite you to take a look at the games released on Xbox that have or later will have some kind of relationship with GamePass.
The fact is that there are even many ID@Xbox games that don't make it to GamePass. Even many PlayAnywhere games that don't launch to GamePass.
Then you have cases where games in a series or yearly games are released on GamePass, but subsequent games in the series aren't... What's the explanation for that then?
I mean, the vast majority of games in the Xbox catalog aren't GamePass games. Releasing a game on Xbox just because you have a 3% chance that, at some point, you might be able to reach a deal with GamePass... I don't think it's a very logical reason.
I don't understand it. Extra marketing as an incentive is nothing new. In fact, I include it as one of the many reasons I use for publishing on Xbox. Because MS often markets games that aren't released on GamePass.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Baemono
Member
What's 45 here ? Million ?
Baemono
Member
They had a big start (21+ million by 31 December 2022), mostly being Series S, thanks to the shortage of the X and PS5, and 3 years later they barely managed to sell 10 million (most being Series X, wondering if some of them are not people who bought a Series S first deciding to buy an X afterwards), and they keep shipping less than 1 million per quarter for several quarters now, which is Wii U category.
At this stage, it's like it's the end of the generation for Microsoft, hence the discussions about the purpose of putting a game on this platform.
Surely the 13.5 million who bought a Wii U didn't disappear when the Switch launched 5 years later, but they were invisible to 3rd parties
Sevyne
Member
This is very true. IIRC even for how bad the Vita did in hardware sales, most owners bought a shitload of the games. It's why indies and smaller projects for established devs continued to support it for years after Sony ditched it.
Like the Dreamcast of portables. Hell, people still make Dreamcast games lol.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
You guys have repeated this same crap for so many years that you're actually starting to believe it
Self programming in action. Fascinating to see, really.
Even Microsoft is starting to believe it