Support NeoGAF

[Imru’ al-Qays]

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.

What exactly does Live membership mean in this context? Surely Microsoft isn't going to require a $50/year Live subscription to play Gears, Halo, and Killer Instinct on PC? What incentive will PC gamers have to buy Live subscriptions?

 

[serversurfer]

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.

I totally see where you're coming from and I don't disagree, but at the same time, what can they really say? "Yeah, the Bone is pretty much of a failure. I mean, you can still buy one, if you want, but we're more focused on Windows now, to be honest."

 

[Obliterator]

What exactly does Live membership mean in this context? Surely Microsoft isn't going to require a $50/year Live subscription to play Gears, Halo, and Killer Instinct on PC? What incentive will PC gamers have to buy Live subscriptions?

Nope Live will be free on PC unless they are truly insane.

BUT in terms of reporting its an easy win. When they can come out and say "We added 1 or 2 million Live members this Quarter" thats going to look good when talking to investors. Adding in something like say "Total Live usage has risen by 20% for the quarter off the strength of expanding into PC" again it looks good.

MS isn't stupid. They are only gowing to switch to something they view as a growth sector for reporting.

 

[Sydle]

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 soar as proof of anything is laughable and you know it.

And you're just guessing. You can point to all matter of things in the past, but in the end it's still just a guess. What makes your guess better than a press release referring to how they will report on Xbox in future earnings statements?

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.

Okay genius, show me my post(s) where I explicitly stated MS was not obscuring poor hardware demand.

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.

You should consider lightening up, Rex.

MS provided a reason why they changed their reporting and all I'm doing is relaying it. I never said they weren't obscuring weak hardware demand, too, but that is only an assertion and it's all it ever can be. You can't seem to reconcile that, which is odd to me, but you don't owe me an explanation as to why you're so invested in that theory.

All you've provided is a guess and it's the absolute best you can do. Like I said before, you can keep it. It's clear you're not willing to part with it and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Nope Live will be free on PC unless they are truly insane.

BUT in terms of reporting its an easy win. When they can come out and say "We added 1 or 2 million Live members this Quarter" thats going to look good when talking to investors. Adding in something like say "Total Live usage has risen by 20% for the quarter off the strength of expanding into PC" again it looks good.

MS isn't stupid. They are only gowing to switch to something they view as a growth sector for reporting.

Revenue not reporting. Investors will care about revenue being generated from those users. Microsoft isn't a start up that user numbers is used as a measuring stick.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Nope Live will be free on PC unless they are truly insane.

BUT in terms of reporting its an easy win. When they can come out and say "We added 1 or 2 million Live members this Quarter" thats going to look good when talking to investors. Adding in something like say "Total Live usage has risen by 20% for the quarter off the strength of expanding into PC" again it looks good.

MS isn't stupid. They are only gowing to switch to something they view as a growth sector for reporting.

Yeah but Live members who don't pay a subscription and who aren't locked into paying Microsoft 30% of every game they buy are pretty much worthless, aren't they?

 

[serversurfer]

What exactly does Live membership mean in this context? Surely Microsoft isn't going to require a $50/year Live subscription to play Gears, Halo, and Killer Instinct on PC? What incentive will PC gamers have to buy Live subscriptions?

Live user = Steam user = customer with declared interest in gaming

That's what they report now. That's what matters.

 

[Obliterator]

Revenue not reporting. Investors will care about revenue being generated from those users. Microsoft isn't a start up that user numbers is used as a measuring stick.

To a degree. However the Xbox Division can scrape by mostly unnoticed to the bulk of investors. They just need a couple nice phrases to throw out.

I mean guy's, this isn't a theory. Its whats happening. There no less than 5 Xbox titles currently on their way to PC

Sea of Thieves
Gears of War
Fable Legends
Killer Instinct
Halo Wars 2.

Xbox Live on PC is about to be a very real and very important thing.

Live user = Steam user = customer with declared interest in gaming

That's what they report now. That's what matters.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner

 

[RexNovis]

I totally see where you're coming from and I don't disagree, but at the same time, what can they really say? "Yeah, the Bone is pretty much of a failure. I mean, you can still buy one, if you want."

Right. That's why it's an understandable and obvious move. That's why I find it odd that some would try to argue otherwise. The context and timing surrounding business decisions tells us a lot about their motivations. Dismissing the whole picture because of some nice PR and restructuring is disingenuous at best. These plans they are executing are clearly long term with very little in the way of execution currently. Like I said the timing of these reporting changes just doesn't make sense were these plans to be the primary driving factor. It doesn't add up when you consider everything at okay currently.

Now that said there is something to be said of impending changes to subscriptions and live mean for their future plans as Obliterator pointed out. One that could mean big changes for the way they handle their game software. But that isn't the dialogue Paco was putting forward. I do think it is a conversation worth having though.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

To a degree. However the Xbox Division can scrape by mostly unnoticed to the bulk of investors. They just need a couple nice phrases to throw out.

I mean guy's, this isn't a theory. Its whats happening. There no less than 5 Xbox titles currently on their way to PC

Sea of Thieves
Gears of War
Fable Legends
Killer Instinct
Halo Wars 2.

Xbox Live on Pc is about to be a very real and very important thing.

And what good do these games do Microsoft once they're on PC? They do nothing to lock people into Microsoft's ecosystem, since "Live users" can still make all the extracurricular purchases they want on Steam. They don't really do anything to lock people into Microsoft's OS anyway, since anyone who cares about PC gaming already runs Windows.

 

[Obliterator]

Yeah but Live members who don't pay a subscription and who aren't locked into paying Microsoft 30% of every game they buy are pretty much worthless, aren't they?

30%? It's going to be 100% revenue return on a zero cost digital game. These won't be on Steam. MS will recipient 100% revenue.

I mean sell a million or so copies of the next Halo with a full kickback. Thats not a small number.

And what good do these games do Microsoft once they're on PC? They do nothing to lock people into Microsoft's ecosystem, since "Live users" can still make all the extracurricular purchases they want on Steam. They don't really do anything to lock people into Microsoft's OS anyway, since anyone who cares about PC gaming already runs Windows.

For the exact same reason EA created Origin, Ubisoft created UPlay, Rockstar has the Social Club, and CDProjekt Red have GOG Galaxy.

There is huge money to be made in the PC space.

 

[kinoki]

To a degree. However the Xbox Division can scrape by mostly unnoticed to the bulk of investors. They just need a couple nice phrases to throw out.

I mean guy's, this isn't a theory. Its whats happening. There no less than 5 Xbox titles currently on their way to PC

Sea of Thieves
Gears of War
Fable Legends
Killer Instinct
Halo Wars 2.

Xbox Live on PC is about to be a very real and very important thing.

I'd argue that these games are only coming to PC since they're not expected to make any kind of profit on XBO.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I'd argue that these games are only coming to PC since they're not expected to make any kind of profit on XBO.

I said the exact same thing earlier. If Gear Of War 4 is on PC the same day as Xbox One then I'll believe it.

 

[Obliterator]

I'd argue that these games are only coming to PC since they're not expected to make any kind of profit on XBO.

And I would argue you are totally incorrect. Its the beginning, MS is warming up the smaller entires of their major franchises to pave way for the big ones.

You have a Gears title, a Halo title, and a Fable title. Thats not a coincidence.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

30%? It's going to be 100% revenue return on a zero cost digital game. These won't be on Steam. MS will recipient 100% revenue.

I mean sell a million or so copies of the next Halo with a full kickback. Thats not a small number.

So Microsoft's masterplan is just to try to do what EA did with Origin? Make their store the only place you can buy their games?

I mean, surely there's more to it than that. 100% profit on every Microsoft-published PC game is tiny compared to a 30% cut of every third-party game sold on an Xbox, which Microsoft will no longer have access to unless people actually have a reason to buy third-party games on their store as opposed to on Steam or anywhere else.

For the exact same reason EA created Origin, Ubisoft created UPlay, Rockstar has the Social Club, and CDProjekt Red have GOG Galaxy.

There is huge money to be made in the PC space.

Microsoft isn't some bit player like EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, or CDProjekt. I'm finding it really hard to believe that their grand strategy for the future of the Xbox brand is to turn it into just any old digital storefront.

 

[Obliterator]

So Microsoft's masterplan is just to try to do what EA did with Origin? Make their store the only place you can buy their games?

I mean, surely there's more to it than that. 100% profit on every Microsoft-published PC game is tiny compared to a 30% cut of every third-party game sold on an Xbox, which Microsoft will no longer have access to unless people actually have a reason to buy third-party games on their store as opposed to on Steam or anywhere else.

Why would people stop buying Xboxs just because games are on PC?

Every major 3rd party game is on PC. Consoles are still selling in the 10s of millions. They are not the same market by and large

 

[hawk2025]

The conclusions seem to be veering quite close to "GFWL is back, deal with it".

 

[Obliterator]

And here's some food for thought. Something to chew on, and a kickback to what I was talking about earlier with exclusives.

Barely 10% of Xbox One owners bought Halo 5.
Less than that bought Gears Remaster.
Less than that bought Forza Horizon 2 or Forza 6
Less than that bought Tomb Raider
Less than that bought Sunset Overdrive

Do you see where this is going? Exclusive titles are not moving these consoles. 3rd party are. 90% of the Xbox userbase isnt even buying it to play an exclusive game. They want to play COD and Fallout and Battlefront at a cheap price with hook up and play simplicity.

MS can rake in PC digital revenue cash and still sell systems. All at once.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Why would people stop buying Xboxs just because games are on PC?

Every mahor 3rd party game is on PC. Consoles are still selling in the 10s of millions. They are not the same market by and large

I thought the consensus was that Microsoft was going to get out of the traditional console business. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly that strategy entails.

So now what you're telling me is that Microsoft's long-term strategy is to replace the Xbox with an Xbox-branded Windows console that can only access the Xbox store, meaning with something that is functionally identical to an Xbox. And then they'll also sell their internally-developed "Xbox" games on their revived GfWL digital storefront to PC gamers. And PC gamers won't buy Live subscriptions because they won't need them, so they won't actually be locked into Microsoft's ecosystem in any meaningful way.

I'll be quite honest: I don't see the point of any of this.

 

[Obliterator]

I thought the consensus was that Microsoft was going to get out of the traditional console business. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly that strategy entails.

So now what you're telling me is that Microsoft's long-term strategy is to replace the Xbox with an Xbox-branded Windows console that can only access the Xbox store, meaning with something that is functionally identical to an Xbox. And then they'll also sell their internally-developed "Xbox" games on their revived GfWL digital storefront to PC gamers. And PC gamers won't buy Live subscriptions because they won't need them, so they won't actually be locked into Microsoft's ecosystem in any meaningful way.

I'll be quite honest: I don't see the point of any of this.

See my above post. The strategy is to sell games on PC and Console. Its different markets.

 

[hawk2025]

The whole logic just sounds haphazard.

I'm not convinced.

 

[kinoki]

And I would argue you are totally incorrect. Its the beginning, MS is warming up the smaller entires of their major franchises to pave way for the big ones.

You have a Gears title, a Halo title, and a Fable title. Thats not a coincidence.

HD-remake, spin-off and spin-off. And MMO-games. All focused on micro transaction. If they really were serious we'd see Halo 5.

 

[Obliterator]

HD-remake, spin-off and spin-off. And MMO-games. All focused on micro transaction. If they really were serious we'd see Halo 5.

Here the more important part.

Cheap, cheap, cheap, and cheap. We have 2 games already released, one which is in the pipeline, one which is F2P. These are low risk games. If MS gamble of Live on PC doesn't work, no huge loss in revenue. If they do well? The franchises now have an entry on the PC.

Dont be surprised if you don't see Gears 4, Halo 6, etc day 1. Maybe the "PC Tax" is a 6-12 month wait. They have a pre built excuse Devs and Pubs use all the time. "The PC port will hit a bit later to ensure quality"

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

See my above post. The strategy is to sell games on PC and Console. Its different markets.

Yeah but on PC Microsoft is just any old publisher. They sell their games and they make a profit on them like EA or Activision or Ubisoft. Big deal. EA, Activision, and Ubisoft are tiny, irrelevant companies compared to Microsoft.

Microsoft's grand strategy for gaming simply cannot be "we're also going to sell our own first-party games on PC on our own first-party digital storefront." Their PC gaming revenue will be chump change compared to even this generation's greatly-reduced Xbox licensing revenues. And there's no long-term strategic advantage for Microsoft in being in the game development business unless it helps them lock customers into some sort of ecosystem, which as far as I can tell this won't.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Here the more important part.

Cheap, cheap, cheap, and cheap. We have 2 games already released, one which is in the pipeline, one which is F2P. These are low risk games. If MS gamble of Live on PC doesn't work, no huge loss in revenue. If they do well? The franchises now have an entry on the PC.

Dont be surprised if you don't see Gears 4, Halo 6, etc day 1. Maybe the "PC Tax" is a 6-12 month wait. They have a pre built excuse Devs and Pubs use all the time. "The PC port will hit a bit later to ensure quality"

So basically wait to see how much of success a game is before deciding whether a PC port is the best financial move?

 

[RexNovis]

Id be inclined to think they'll be using "Games with Gold" and other Xbox features as a hard sell for Gold subs on PC. If they are serious about creating a cross platform ecosystem they will need to bring all of their software output to all relevant platforms. What will be interesting is seeing whether or not the Xbox games platform will be locked to Windows 10 only or whether they will allow it to be used on OS X, IOS, SteamOS and Linux. I'd assume they would lock to Windows 10 but if they really want universal coverage it's a possibility they expand it to other OSs.

I'm also not sure about how their timeline timeline will unfold. Will the make a big push starting at E3 or GDC this year or will they do a slow roll out followed by a full push towards the end of the console gen? The latter could allow them to rollout all their first party content without hindering the potential profitability of XB1.

 

[Obliterator]

Yeah but on PC Microsoft is just any old publisher. They sell their games and they make a profit on them like EA or Activision or Ubisoft. Big deal. EA, Activision, and Ubisoft are tiny, irrelevant companies compared to Microsoft.

Microsoft's grand strategy for gaming simply cannot be "we're also going to sell our own first-party games on PC on our own first-party digital storefront." Their PC gaming revenue will be chump change compared to even this generation's greatly-reduced Xbox licensing revenues. And there's no long-term strategic advantage for Microsoft in being in the game development business unless it helps them lock customers into some sort of ecosystem, which as far as I can tell this won't.

Why would you not do both? And here lets use another example, as in the industry you can always follow the paper trail.

Lets use a AAA game that has its own store front. The Witcher 3, Wild Hunt.

The game sold, 70% console (which is still dominated by physical) and 30% PC (domninated by digital and CD has their own store front)

Digital accounted for a whopping 50% of all revenue. How is that possible? Because a 100% return on a $60 game is not a small factor to be ignored. Obviously console digital played a part but there can be little doubt a huge chunk of that digital revenue was GOG sales.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

To a degree. However the Xbox Division can scrape by mostly unnoticed to the bulk of investors. They just need a couple nice phrases to throw out.

I mean guy's, this isn't a theory. Its whats happening. There no less than 5 Xbox titles currently on their way to PC

Sea of Thieves
Gears of War
Fable Legends
Killer Instinct
Halo Wars 2.

Xbox Live on PC is about to be a very real and very important thing.


Ding ding ding! We have a winner

Unnoticed no, if the overall results are good then yes Xbox division numbers won't matter. But also, the divisions have been combined so there is no Xbox division. It falls under the Windows & Devices division. If at any point investors feel that Xbox Live is just bringing in numbers but no dollars then it will start having a negative effect.

The move to have more games on PC is part of increasing revenue from Xbox Live from both Windows and Xbox devices.

 

[Obliterator]

The move to have more games on PC is part of increasing revenue from Xbox Live from both Windows and Xbox devices.

No doubt as illustrated in my above post using Witcher as a reference

 

[jryi]

You're forgetting the revenue from the Xbox Marketplace.

Isn't that revenue completely dependent on Xbox install base? I would wager that 95+% of their revenue comes from console software.

What is another service-based metric that makes more sense than number of users? What other primary (read: most important) metric do you assign to the Head of Xbox that signals he's doing his job to attract more gaming users to the broader Windows 10 platform? I'm seriously asking, because it seems you know something I don't and I'm eager to learn.

Revenue. That is a very relevant service based metric: how much money you are extracting from your customers.

What secondary metrics should one track, then? Number of active users and ARPPU (average revenue per paying user), at least. These are things you can try to influence with pricing and offering, but also by making the service available to people. Microsoft can make Xbox service available by selling Xbox consoles or by activating them on Windows platform.

Now, here's a tricky thing: you cannot only measure people who have access to your service, you also have to understand stickyness. Xbox console owners are far more likely to spend money on your service than people who have an Xbox application on their mobile phones or Windows PC (NB: this is purely my own assumption). Therefore an "active Xbox Live user" is not a meaningful concept in and of itself, because the ARPPU of a console owner can be upwards of $10/month, whereas on Windows and mobile it may struggle to reach $1.

So, the install base (and hardware shipments) of Xbox are an extremely relevant metric, when it comes to understanding the revenue potential of the service.

IMHO.

Why not go completely 3rd party then if hardware is such a drain that this would be a win?

Strategically, this would make sense. MS is a software company at its core, and the profit margins are much higher on software than hardware. Given that their cost of capital must be pretty high (they do pay generous dividends, don't they?), I'm surprised that they can afford an expensive undertaking such as Xbox.

 

[slavesnyder]

Well, then I wish Microsoft good luck with beating Steam in their own game.

 

[hawk2025]

Why would you not do both? And here lets use another example, as in the industry you can always follow the paper trail.

Lets use a AAA game that has its own store front. The Witcher 3, Wild Hunt.

The game sold, 70% console (which is still dominated by physical) and 30% PC (domninated by digital and CD has their own store front)

Digital accounted for a whopping 50% of all revenue. How is that possible? Because a 100% return on a $60 game is not a small factor to be ignored. Obviously console digital played a part but there can be little doubt a huge chunk of that digital revenue was GOG sales.

With 20% or so of console copies being digital, it adds up to somewhere around 44% of revenue already.

This example is not nearly as stark as you are making it out to be.

 

[Obliterator]

One last thing I want to throw out there, is I want to be clear I'm not saying PC is the future of everything Xbox. Or that you will see Gears 4 or Halo 6 on PC.

What I AM saying is MS is making a clear attempt to try to take back on that corner of the market. Its not a coincidence you hear "Windows 10" spoken by Phil so much, why this group of titles is coming, or why they are doing it. It could be this thing crashes out the gate, they don't get a strong stable of Live users and they bail back out.

But the attempt is there.

With 20% or so of console copies being digital, it adds up to somewhere around 44% of revenue already.

This example is not nearly as stark as you are making it out to be.

Ummmmmmmm no. They dont see a 100% return on console digital and we know the game sold more on GOG than it did Steam.

You are willfully ignoring what being presented. Such as saying how does it help them if people leave the ecosystem.

Read my above post. People aren't even buying Xbox's to play exclusive games. The majorityof the owners don't even care about them. Every single copy sold on PC is just bonus points

 

[AniHawk]

Well, then I wish Microsoft good luck with beating Steam in their own game.

it won't be just microsoft. steam is going to be the major player everyone's going to be competing against in the next several years while they try to establish themselves in a post-dedicated hardware world.

 

[Durante]

I think the only reason Microsoft still need hardware is that they have yet to find an effective way of locking people into their ecosystem using only software. And locking people into ecosystems is what everything has been about for these companies, at the very least since the appstore revenue demon was hatched.

 

[Obliterator]

I think the only reason Microsoft still need hardware is that they have yet to find an effective way of locking people into their ecosystem using only software. And locking people into ecosystems is what everything has been about for these companies, at the very least since the appstore revenue demon was hatched.

For sure and thats why i see this as a transitional type period. They are testing the waters again on PC and seeing how they can get revenue from that base.

But yes the Xbox Hardware is still incredibly important and they won't be abandoning it any time soon.

 

[slavesnyder]

it won't be just microsoft. steam is going to be the major player everyone's going to be competing against in the next several years while they try to establish themselves in a post-dedicated hardware world.

Absolutely. Steam only is the first to come to mind. You can throw in everyone in the business from Google to Amazon to Apple. Funnily, while MS seems to lose passion for consoles, the others start to create them.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Why would you not do both? And here lets use another example, as in the industry you can always follow the paper trail.

Lets use a AAA game that has its own store front. The Witcher 3, Wild Hunt.

The game sold, 70% console (which is still dominated by physical) and 30% PC (domninated by digital and CD has their own store front)

Digital accounted for a whopping 50% of all revenue. How is that possible? Because a 100% return on a $60 game is not a small factor to be ignored. Obviously console digital played a part but there can be little doubt a huge chunk of that digital revenue was GOG sales.

I'm not saying Microsoft won't make any money from selling its games on PC. I'm saying the money it'll make will be chump change compared to what it currently makes from its console business, which is itself already chump change compared to what it makes from its core businesses (Windows, Office, Azure).

Having your own digital games storefront is a great business model for a company like CDProjekt. But Microsoft isn't some tiny Eastern European game developer, it's a multi-billion dollar tech company with its hands in a dozen pies.

What is the point of the Xbox division in this mobile first future? How does it help lock people into Microsoft's ecosystems or products? Selling first party games on PC for a minuscule profit isn't going to do a damn thing to make this look like a worthwhile division.

I think the only reason Microsoft still need hardware is that they have yet to find an effective way of locking people into their ecosystem using only software. And locking people into ecosystems is what everything has been about for these companies, at the very least since the appstore revenue demon was hatched.

Has anyone found an effective way of locking people into their ecosystem using only software?

 

[Obliterator]

I'm not saying Microsoft won't make any money from selling its games on PC. I'm saying the money it'll make will be chump change compared to what it currently makes from its console business, which is itself already chump change compared to what it makes from its core businesses (Windows, Office, Azure).

Having your own digital games storefront is a great business model for a company like CDProjekt. But Microsoft isn't some tiny Eastern European gave developer, it's a multi-billion dollar tech company with its hands in a dozen pies.

What is the point of the Xbox division in this mobile first future? How does it help lock people into Microsoft's ecosystems or products? Selling first party games on PC for a minuscule profit isn't going to do a damn thing to make this look like a worthwhile division.

Because I dont think this is an instant decision to totally replace Xbox with PC. Not at all.

Its MS weighing out what they can accomplish from a revenue perspective on the platform and what they can do to monetize it to strengthen and add another pillar to the shrinking Xbox brand.

In other words, use the strengths of both to support a slowly contracting console business. MS is full of highly intelligent people that are weighing the cost and return of moving software from being platform locked to platform agnostic. Again look at micro transactions now in Halo. They are doing that for revenue as stand alone software sales alone are not enough. Its why you also see Season Passes everywhere.

Companies are doubling down on how to get maximum revenue out of every single title. Adding a platform can certainly aid in that endeavor.

 

[Three]

And I would argue you are totally incorrect. Its the beginning, MS is warming up the smaller entires of their major franchises to pave way for the big ones.

You have a Gears title, a Halo title, and a Fable title. Thats not a coincidence.

Didn't we have this in 2005-7?
Guess why.
Matt knows what's up.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Because I dont think this is an instant decision to totally replace Xbox with PC. Not at all.

Its MS weighing out what they can accomplish from a revenue perspective on the platform and what they can do to monetize it to strengthen and add another pillar to the shrinking Xbox brand.

In other words, use the strengths of both to support a slowly contracting console business. MS is full of highly intelligent people that are weighing the cost and return of moving software from being platform locked to platform agnostic. Again look at micro transactions now in Halo. They are doing that for revenue as stand alone software sales alone are not enough. Its why you also see Season Passes everywhere.

Companies are doubling down on how to get maximum revenue out of every single title. Adding a platform can certainly aid in that endeavor.

But Microsoft isn't like other game developers. It's not in this business to make money off games. The only reason Microsoft makes Halo is to get people to buy Xboxes. There's no reason for Microsoft to develop games at all if doing so doesn't lock people into their ecosystem in some way.

Once Xbox becomes just another Steam competitor what exactly is the point of this business for Microsoft? The end goal has to be to keep people on Windows somehow, but how does this accomplish that?

it won't be just microsoft. steam is going to be the major player everyone's going to be competing against in the next several years while they try to establish themselves in a post-dedicated hardware world.

Valve is trying to break into the hardware market for a reason, and it's not because having a storefront on someone else's platform is the business strategy of the future.

 

[jryi]

The only reason Microsoft makes Halo is to get people to buy Xboxes. There's no reason for Microsoft to develop games at all if doing so doesn't lock people into their ecosystem in some way.

Why would they need Xbox for this?

Billion dollars in R&D. Manufacturing, logistics, marketing, support, whatnot. Tie capital in designing and moving hardware. For what? Get a few million users on top of the billion that you had anyway?

Call me crazy, but I don't see what sense selling Xbox hardware makes for Microsoft.

 

[Obliterator]

But Microsoft isn't like other game developers. It's not in this business to make money off games. The only reason Microsoft makes Halo is to get people to buy Xboxes. There's no reason for Microsoft to develop games at all if doing so doesn't lock people into their ecosystem in some way.

Once Xbox becomes just another Steam competitor what exactly is the point of this business for Microsoft? The end goal has to be to keep people on Windows somehow, but how does this accomplish that?

One way is by making their games only work on the latest versions of Windows. In fact they are already doing that. The Wireless Xbox One Controller Adapter is Windows 10 only as is all of their upcoming games. It could be used to entice some people to upgrade.

But yep, I mean its happening we have proof. MS has also said upcoming games like Fable Legends won't be on Steam. There is only one place for it to go. Xbox Live accounts.

But I have to go to bed everyone, its been some great conversation and I'll see you all in another thread soon

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why would they need Xbox for this?

Billion dollars in R&D. Manufacturing, logistics, marketing, support, whatnot. Tie capital in designing and moving hardware. For what? Get a few million users on top of the billion that you had anyway?

Call me crazy, but I don't see what sense selling Xbox hardware makes for Microsoft.

Capture the living room. That is where Xbox hardware makes sense. That is also where the Xbox One launch went into the misguided territory. The dream has always been to capture the living room, MS did that decently with Xbox 360, gaming was the gateway to sell people on entertainment in the living room via the Xbox.

But Microsoft isn't like other game developers. It's not in this business to make money off games. The only reason Microsoft makes Halo is to get people to buy Xboxes. There's no reason for Microsoft to develop games at all if doing so doesn't lock people into their ecosystem in some way.

Once Xbox becomes just another Steam competitor what exactly is the point of this business for Microsoft? The end goal has to be to keep people on Windows somehow, but how does this accomplish that?

I would disagree that Microsoft is not in the business of making money off games. Halo is made both FOR people who have bought Xboxes and to get more people to buy Xboxes. Halo also wouldn't be made if the game was not profitable. Microsoft makes games to keep people into an ecosystem. Xbox Live is a big part of that ecosystem and it is also the only part of the ecosystem that MS can have on Windows. By having the same games on PC too, MS can look at developing an Xbox Live ecosystem on Windows (they really need X-play for this though).

MS wants to make money off games and they also want people to keep using their services and generate revenue via those services.

 

[kinoki]

Capture the living room. That is where Xbox hardware makes sense. That is also where the Xbox One launch went into the misguided territory. The dream has always been to capture the living room, MS did that decently with Xbox 360, gaming was the gateway to sell people on entertainment in the living room via the Xbox.

The living room is dead. It's a relic of the past.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

The living room is dead. It's a relic of the past.

Not literally the living room. Idea is for the device and ecosystem to be what gets you your entertainment.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Why would they need Xbox for this?

Billion dollars in R&D. Manufacturing, logistics, marketing, support, whatnot. Tie capital in designing and moving hardware. For what? Get a few million users on top of the billion that you had anyway?

Call me crazy, but I don't see what sense selling Xbox hardware makes for Microsoft.

Microsoft needed Xbox because they were worried that video game consoles would become PCs that don't run Windows. Which they are. Xbox is their way to stay relevant in the "computers you hook up to your TV" market, which is a very important market to be relevant in.

The point isn't to sell games, it's to keep Windows relevant as people move away from traditional PCs.

 

[slavesnyder]

The living room is dead. It's a relic of the past.

I still have one.

Stop living in the future. Only because technological advanced people have some wireless server achitechture at home, streaming all shit from their fridge to their tv and back doesn't mean this is the standard for the masses.
A box under the TV that plays games is simple and for that good.

Thing is, with Chromecast, smart TVs and so on, the focus of the Xbox as an all-in-one-blah is an anachronism now.

 

[Steroyd]

Microsoft needed Xbox because they were worried that video game consoles would become PCs that don't run Windows. Which they are. Xbox is their way to stay relevant in the "computers you hook up to your TV" market, which is a very important market to be relevant in.

The point isn't to sell games, it's to keep Windows relevant as people move away from traditional PCs.

They were right to be worried but they also got punched in the dick by iOS and Android.

 

[AniHawk]

Valve is trying to break into the hardware market for a reason, and it's not because having a storefront on someone else's platform is the business strategy of the future.

well i mean valve's been getting away with it for over a decade so i don't see why a successful business model like that wouldn't interest others, especially when it has already.

i wouldn't call what valve is doing with steam machines or even steam link them 'trying to break into the hardware market'. it's more of an expansion of the brand. and i take it as a way to offer more options to current users instead of jumping in to compete with nintendo, sony, and microsoft in a shrinking space.