CosmicQueso
Member
Seems the way they're heading. Fine by me, if it works and we get rid of the console vs pc debate the world will be better for it lol.
-
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.
NPD Sales Results for October 2015 [Up1: Xbox #1]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Seems the way they're heading. Fine by me, if it works and we get rid of the console vs pc debate the world will be better for it lol.
Obliterator
Member
Yeah MS in general is heading that way. Just look at MS Word, Excel, etc. coming to Ipad. Thats gigantic. MS is a software company first and foremost and Satya Nadella understands that.
3rdamention
Member
Regardless of how Microsoft performs in November NPD, with their $1 for one month of Xbox Live, I predict a big jump in that Active Users metric they are pushing now. That is going to help push that number up a bunch for November, even if it is for 1 month for $1.
So that will be a pretty big part of their November PR.
So that will be a pretty big part of their November PR.
I don't recall saying they aren't providing number because they are bad. I actually agree with that and it's entirely typical. I even acknowledged that they said they would share hardware numbers sometimes, which anyone can guess is when they have a great month or quarter.
Go back to my first post and follow it, I've been squarely focused on their recent change of the primary metric. I still don't understand how people are missing the bigger picture on why they changed the primary metric from a device-centric one to a service-centric one. Seems some people get it, but most don't.
Changing the primary metric to Live Users doesn't necessarily mean MS has to charge PC users for Gold.
They had to go to iPad because they were starting to lose people to other options like google docs. It was reactionary, not visionary.
As far as a unifying Xbox with Windows, how does that make them more money? Xbox users are very profitable as they are in a walled garden and pay for things like online multiplayer. The pc is not a walled garden and users do not pay for online play, so why would they want to shift xbox people to Windows? Where is the payoff? And the idea of shifting pc users into a walled garden with paid online is laughable.
Besides, the real money is business focused cloud and trying to get Windows and office users to cough up a yearly fee. I doubt Nad devotes more than two minutes a year to Xbox, small potatoes.
Edit: and AFAIK they have never provided # of paid gold subs either.
Obliterator
Member
His vision for the company is Windows and MS everywhere. Being on PC can add software sales. Fallout 4 did 2 million copies in a week. You dont think MS would be down to add another million or two sales to each Halo installment? Why shouldn't it be on PC?
I mean people need to just be ready for it because its coming
True sort of how Steam talks about "active accounts". Im sure when MS sets up their Live accounts on PC being able to announce a huge number of "Live Users" across both devices will be a nice sounding number to use in their press releases and investors meetings
StrongBlackVine
Banned
There is also the possibility that those PC users were buying Xbox consoles for Halo and the sales will simply shift from one platform to another.
Because instead of investing Billions of $ in R&D for hardware that never really end up profitable most of the time, it would be wiser to support the OS they are known for with a gaming brand they have (costily) built over the past 15 years or so?
In that sense, their true competitors will end up being Steam and other such PC online marketplaces, but where it would be enough to release a Xbox branded $399-$599 HTPC that they could sub to a Dell or someone else, what will really make them money is enlarging the userbase for their software, providing a strong gaming backend for Win10 and, yes, also providing a paid "premium" online experience with something that could be called "Live Plus" or whatever.
In the end, they missed the boat so much with the failed GfwL that it'll be a rough transition, but one that is probably necessary for the long term.
Because their goal is get people into the garden, and exclusive games are how platform holders have traditionally accomplished that. I mean if they just want maximum Halo sales, why not put it on Wii u, ps4, and Steam?
Why is Apple the most valuable company? Because they have their customers locked into their mobile walled garden. That is where the money is: locked-in customers. If you want to see MS' version of that you need to look into their cloud offerings for business, not gaming.
Dude, the "primary metric" is just PR spin. You are acting like it is a real policy change inside of Microsoft. You are wrong.
Obliterator
Member
And do we have any proof that exclusive games move a large amount of hardware anymore?
Because heres the thing, if you analyze this entire generation there isn't much evidence to support that theory.
It is too late for pc, you can't turn an open platform into a closed one. If they tried it would be a regulatory and customer backlash shitshow.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
At this point I think the only exclusive left that has the chance to push serious hardware is Gran Turismo Sport. Uncharted 4 will do well enough but it won't do super amazing hardware numbers in March I think.
Gran Turismo Sport PS4 bundle with PSVR included for whatever will be a reasonable price for this, probably somewhere between 500-600 bucks, could be a really big deal.
Yep, Nadella even admitted as much when he took over. He said they needed to adapt to new trends faster, going as far to say that meant removing some management and making sure that bureaucracy wasn't slowing down innovation.
I imagine the Xbox shift to a platform is the same reason that Nadella pushed for Windows across many devices because it was becoming irrelevant. I think he said that Windows was only on 11% of all devices, which he attributed to them having fallen behind the times (e.g., mobile). He strongly believes that people want their experiences to go with them, to be persistent and responsive to whatever screen you're on, and that's the directive behind his strategy and every piece of the business has been aligned behind that strategy. We'll have to see if he's right or not, but there's no denying that he's changing Xbox.
They announced a change in how they report financials across the business back on Sept 28th.
3DS isn't selling that bad (not great, but far above Wii U levels), and it's got basically nothing but exclusives.
How many PS4s would Sony have sold with zero exclusive games? How many wiius would Nintendo have sold? And ms xbox1s?
So yes, exclusive games are absolutely required for console sales.
Obliterator
Member
And yet the Wii U which is almosy entirely exclusive is tanking
Forza sure isn't lighting up the charts or selling consoles
Halo 5 had no significant boost
Tomb Raider is doing nothing for hardware
Sony have not had a single exclusive this entire generation that has had a significant hardware boost
MS still lost during Titanfall month
We could go on and on and on. Exclusive games do not move hardware at large scale this entire generation.
What HAS impacted hardware is price, 3rd party games, and good bundles.
Yeah, and this has been a pretty disappointing fact for me to be honest.
Exclusives HAVE helped this gen but they are no where near the system sellers they were in the past. I expected things to be this way during the second half of the gen (e.g.: 2017+). It being this way right out of the gate though? Just a bit disappointing to me.
Compare the first two years of this gen with the first two years of the PS2 gen -- heck, even the 360 gen. BIG difference in the games that greatly pushed console sales. Mix of multiplats and exclusives. Now it's pretty much multiplats.
Obliterator
Member
And yet when consumer's are polled exclusives are not in the top of any of the list.
What is? How well they play 3rd party games and brand recognition
Let's not forget about MS having the worst anti-comsumer, tone deaf product reveal in gaming history; and Nintendo trying to scam customers by selling 2006 power in 2012.
And yet when consumer's are polled exclusives are not in the top of any of the list.
What is? How well they play 3rd party games and brand recognition
And Sony's sales would have been bad if Ninty and MS hadn't fucked up so royally. Sony's exclusives are kinda shit.
Did I say anything about those consoles? 3DS is selling 100K+ a month still with nothing but mid-tier and niche exclusives, and months with actual big releases see an uptick in sales. It can't be just for the portable factor, otherwise mobile would've put it at Wii U level sales. 3DS is selling on nothing but its exclusive library, and while it hasn't been impressive this year, it's still selling enough that it can't be completely ignored.
I don't think so when that chart says that the increased graphic fidelity was the primary reason people purchased it. The Xbox One is still the weaker system and third-party games just don't run as well on it.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Nope. PS4 would be selling just fine regardless of what the other two were doing. Playstation home consoles never sold like shit.
Neuromancer
Member
I just saw a commercial for the new Tomb Raider and at the end it said "XBOX EXCLUSIVE | HOLIDAY 2015". It looks to me like MS is still willfully misleading people.
Ghost Slayer
Member
That's the purpose of moneyhat deal
StrongBlackVine
Banned
That has been the tag since the start and yes it is misleading.
It's their thing. That ridiculous wording is likely written exactly like that in the contract, so I assume it's exactly how misleadng they can be without breaching contract or something of the sort.
Welfare
Member
Not really misleading when it is Xbox exclusive in holiday 2015.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Yeah it is. I know the deal is timed and it still confuses me for a split second.
Ghost Slayer
Member
If GAF confused about it when MS announced the deal, I don't think casual consumer will think this far.
Don't waste your time. He's clearly immune to common sense. Nothing you say is gonna change his mind about the facts he has created in his mind.
Where's the comma though?
For real though their whole intent from the get go was to mislead people about the nature of the deal. It should surprise nobody that they are continuing that in the advertising to the otherwise uninformed public.
Honestly I'm more surprised at the fact you saw a Tomb Raider ad at all...
Neuromancer
Member
Yeah I believe it was on Spike during an episode of Cops. Nothing too expensive I'm sure.
Xbox rolls up under Windows, with Spencer reporting to Head of Windows
MS announces changes to how they report financials on Sept 28
CEO and Head of Xbox repeatedly say Xbox is becoming a Windows 10 platform
Facts. And I'm the one without common sense?
Okay, Rexy. Okay. You got me.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
This thread is awesome.
Nobody is denying their future plans what we are denying is your asinine assertions about their changes in reporting sales. Correlation does not equal causation. The facts that you have created are the connections you've made to explain away these changes as being driven by anything other than a desire to hide figures that make them look bad. You are connecting dots that don't exist and then saying your connections are a matter of fact.
So yes either you are delusional or you have no basic understanding of the situation.
Edit: LOL at your avatar change as some sort of attempt to make you seem less of an agenda driven fan. Your purpose in posting in this thread was clear.
No need for assertions, Rexzilla. MS made the connections to their most recently quarterly earnings statement (see the last paragraph), the same earnings statement for which they announced they were going to shift around certain business segments to a new reporting structure.
You can make assertions all you want on why. I'll just follow the news and stick to the facts.
Jak & Daxter happens to be one of my favorite games (search my post history if that's what you need to do), it's coming up on its anniversary of the first release, I'm hoping there's a new one announced at PSX (would also settle for Crash), and I was tired of the green dinosaur because obviously Rare is doing jackshit with Banjo and it was time to move on. You can keep your console warrior stuff to yourself. I don't care which hardware the games are on.
serversurfer
Member
I think you misunderstood what they actually said. They said they may mention hardware sales if they affect the metrics they are reporting. Here's an example. "Revenues were down 14% YOY, driven primarily by unfavorable exchange rates and a drop in shipments of XBox 360 consoles." Stuff like that. We're not gonna get anything resembling actual numbers from here on out; console sales aren't particularly important to MS and their business interests anymore, so it's not something their investors need be concerned with. Hence, they don't report them. You're right; it's not just shame. Nintendo report their shitty sales numbers which are probably even worse than Microsoft's because they're still central to the health of their business. There's no reason for MS to report on things that don't matter anymore, like XBox hardware.
Assuming it can at least break even, MS won't drop the Bone because that would be too damaging to the brand, but MS have made it quite clear they don't feel their future lies in the console business. I wouldn't expect an XBox Too, unless it's some take on a Steam Machine.
It takes a while to turn a big ship. That deal was done a while ago, when the future of XBox was a little less clear than it is today. I'm sure if they had it to do over again, both parties would be inclined to skip that particular deal. It was pretty much money wasted for MS, and it certainly hasn't done any favors to Square's image or their IP.
I'm of two minds, really. On the one hand, hiding the sales is sorta shady, but on the other hand, effectively coming right out and saying, "We've moved past consoles," is refreshingly honest of them. On the gripping hand, there still seems to be a fair bit of confusion as to where they're actually headed, so perhaps they could still stand to be a bit more clear.
Well, probably only amongst MS supporters.
No "sort of" about it. It's precisely the same metric because Steam is who MS are competing with now. You compare your business to your competitors. XBox isn't competing with PlayStation anymore. XBox competes with Steam and the App Store now. It's a store, so they brag about how much traffic it gets, to help attract more product.
And MS will see that shift as a HUGE win, because that's millions of unprofitable pieces of hardware they won't need to move to enable those software sales.
How about a public* alpha for Halo 6, launching exclusively in the W10 Store?
*XBox Live account required
Good point, thanks.
I think Nadella would drop it if they don't see any traction with his new strategy for it. There's no way he'll let it go back to a stand-alone business within the organization when everything else has been realigned to support his 3 pillars.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Why not go completely 3rd party then if hardware is such a drain that this would be a win?
Oh look at that my little edit proved my point as expected. As you point out correlation does not equal causation. The links you posted do nothing to change the fact that you are declaring causation without proof. In fact, a PR statement explaining "HW is down but Subscribers are up!" followed by a statement of their ceasing to report HW figures kind of proves the point everyone was already trying to explain to you. These changes were likely motivated by a need to save face on the Xbox brand especially given their plans for it in the future.
While serversurfer is right XB1 HW sales are a small part of their business and that is why they are no longer reporting them I would argue that it is the only reason they are able to get away with not reporting sales. If Nintendo or PlayStation tried to declare that they would no longer report sales investors would abandon ship in droves because HW sales are an incredibly important metric to the business. But since MS' prime money makers are elsewhere investors don't care as they hold little bearing on the profits of the business as a whole. This, while explaining the how (as in how they get away with refusing to report figures) does not explain the why. The why is exceedingly obvious from the information we have available: damage control for a an MS brand that is integral to their plans for the future. Which is precisely why this little campaign you've waged to explain these reporting changes away as anything but a reflection of less than appealing sales is ludicrous and is being treated as much my so many here including myself. The argument could he made when they have established more of presence across other platforms but as it is now it is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide low numbers behind.
serversurfer
Member
Just to clarify, I don't think there's any danger of them dropping the XBox brand in the foreseeable future. Clearly, they still feel they can get a lot of mileage from it, and indeed, it still holds a lot of positive mindshare in the gaming community. I was just speaking specifically about the Bone itself, and my main point was that I suspect Nadella would sooner let it die than see it sold at significant loss. At that point, it would be arguable whether its continued existence even helps the brand. So from here on out, I expect the Bone hardware will be sold at no less than cost, or at the very least, will be expected to be "profitable almost immediately." Their days of flat out buying market share are behind them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their largest gaming IP and most noteworthy acquisition of late also multi-platform?
That said, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is luring users back to Windows and through their shiny new storefront. Sure, they can put Halo on PlayStation and make some good cash, but is that PlayStation user going to say, "Say, this game is pretty sweet… I think I'll go out and buy a Windows box"? Probably not so much.
I dunno. Like I said, they could just be hiding the numbers, but it really feels to me more like they've just moved past consoles in general. whynotboth.gif as I said initially, I guess. lol
Edit:
Actually, it would be pretty fucking hilarious if they started slapping "XBox Too!" stickers on HTPCs. lol
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
If I buy a game on xbox one and own it on pc as well, they win in my book. Win my money that is.
To me it's a matter of timing. It's exceedingly odd to switch your focus in a market from HW sales to subscribers under the premise of a cross platform ecosystem when you've not yet executed the plans for said ecosystem. Normally businesses don't adjust their parameters for success to accommodate plans that are, by all accounts, still in their infancy. Therefore there must be another impetus for the change and it just so happens to be an incredibly obvious one.
Dude, you're making assertions. I'm just using the news to find direction. You even admit it makes sense, and for the record I never said MS wasn't saving face.
MS provided the why, there's no mental expenditure needed to connect the dots. MS did it for us. You're even acknowledging it as a logical conclusion to their evolving strategy, but then doing some kind of mental gymnastics that make your assertion that they're ALSO obscuring hardware demand to be the only right answer. The fact of the matter is you're making a guess on the latter.
You're also completely fabricating any instance of me saying MS wasn't obscuring disappointing hardware demand. I never mentioned it one way or the other, because it's just a guess and that's all there is too it. Nothing to discuss.
Damage control? Really? A campaign?
What vision do you have of a GAF sales thread...no, wait, of GAF, that you would equate anything on it to a campaign? How important do you think you or anyone else in this thread is that they're worth crafting some kind of tactical series of maneuvers to sway opinion? Talk about ludicrous and delusional. Where do you think you are?
They're just games, Rexy. You could very well be right that MS is also obscuring demand of the Xbox One console, I'm not arguing that and I never was. The only thing I argued was why MS changed the primary metric and stuck to exactly what they told us. We'll never know for certain if your assertion is right, but you're perfectly fine in my book if clinging to it makes you feel better.
Because the CEO thinks he can use it as a competitive advantage for their OS. I don't think he cares about gaming on its own, he only cares about what (Xbox) gaming could do for Windows and Azure, or it doesn't matter.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
So Microsoft's strategy, as I understand it, is to get PC gamers to buy into the Xbox ecosystem as opposed to buying their games on Steam etc. We're going to see games purchased on Xbox consoles transfer over to people's Xbox accounts on PC, and vice versa, and next gen Microsoft will just release an Xbox-branded Windows box instead of a traditional console.
But how do they lock PC gamers into their ecosystem? Sony, Nintendo, Apple, and (to a certain extent) Google and Amazon all hardware lock their customers: if you have a PlayStation the only games you can play on it are games purchased from Sony, if you have an iPhone the only games you can play on it are games purchased from Apple, etc. If you have an Xbox right now the only games you can play on it are games purchased from Microsoft, but if all you have is an Xbox account on your PC there's nothing to stop you from opportunistically buying games elsewhere if you so desire.
What am I missing? Is this about keeping gamers on the PC platform as opposed to on Mac, Chromebook, Steam Machine, etc?
But how do they lock PC gamers into their ecosystem? Sony, Nintendo, Apple, and (to a certain extent) Google and Amazon all hardware lock their customers: if you have a PlayStation the only games you can play on it are games purchased from Sony, if you have an iPhone the only games you can play on it are games purchased from Apple, etc. If you have an Xbox right now the only games you can play on it are games purchased from Microsoft, but if all you have is an Xbox account on your PC there's nothing to stop you from opportunistically buying games elsewhere if you so desire.
What am I missing? Is this about keeping gamers on the PC platform as opposed to on Mac, Chromebook, Steam Machine, etc?
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
I love my Ps4 but I honestly feel like bloodborne is the only true current gen Sony game. Everything else felt kinda rushed to me. I liked infamous one and two but second son felt a bit light on something. I dunno, can't wait to try until dawn but Yeh. Seeing tho bloodborne was an outside company hired by Sony, for me the first party line up has been really disappointing. Not something I thought I would say if you asked me 2 years ago
You are using PR to prove your point. How many times have we caught MS PR in half truths, lies and deceptions the past 3 years? I've frankly lost count. Pointing to their PR as definitive proof of anything is laughable and you know it.
there are no mental gymnastics required when we have concrete information that sales are quite low followed by incredibly deceptive PR abort software profits then a reassessment for their sales reporting. It dies nut take a genius to see how these relate to each other
As far as decrying the idea that changing their reporting was in an effort to hide their less than stellar numbers your posts were doing exactly that. Stating over and over that the driving factor for these changes was just a desire to obfuscate lower performance and that you would acknowledge you were wrong should they report HW sales in the future only to the change your mind about that last bit.
Who the hell said anything about the damage control being specifically for GAF. In fact I said it was damage control for the Xbox brand. As in as a whole for both consumers and investors. The last thing they want is for Xbox to be perceived as a weakened brand given their future plans for integration.
You know this insultingly infantile nickname bullshit is petty. This is the third time you've referred to me like I was a petulant child. How you get that I am the one clinging to an assertion is beyond me. I'm not the one arguing with the majority of sales GAF about the motivations behind a reporting change. That would be you. I'm trying to explain to you why me and so many others do not agree with you. An effort which, unsurprisingly bears no fruit whatsoever no matter how many times I try. How about you drop the thinly veiled insults and actually consider what everyone else is trying to explain to you.
Obliterator
Member
Here's the thing, MS stopped giving specific numbers because Sony is dominating the global install base. It doesnt look good to say "We are at 15 million!" When your opposition is double that.
That said I think people are being a tad rough on Paco in here because I actually think a lot of his line of reasoning is actually correct. It makes sense for MS to switch to reporting Live numbers if
A) They do not have hardware numbers to brag about
And
B) They expect growth to start happening within Live members....which leads us somewhere VERY interesting.
Live membership as an overall total has not been climbing in recent years and in fact there seems to be evidence Gold members are actually decreasing over say 5 years ago. So why now? Why would Live members and Live usage become a metric to measure by if its really not a "win" anymore than hardware is?
Well, they would want to use a growth sector correct? Where is Gears PC going to be? Where is Killer Instinct PC going to be? What about Halo Wars 2 PC?
Your Xbox Live membership, thats where.
That said I think people are being a tad rough on Paco in here because I actually think a lot of his line of reasoning is actually correct. It makes sense for MS to switch to reporting Live numbers if
A) They do not have hardware numbers to brag about
And
B) They expect growth to start happening within Live members....which leads us somewhere VERY interesting.
Live membership as an overall total has not been climbing in recent years and in fact there seems to be evidence Gold members are actually decreasing over say 5 years ago. So why now? Why would Live members and Live usage become a metric to measure by if its really not a "win" anymore than hardware is?
Well, they would want to use a growth sector correct? Where is Gears PC going to be? Where is Killer Instinct PC going to be? What about Halo Wars 2 PC?
Your Xbox Live membership, thats where.