Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
GamePass is all the more reason for MS to go 3rd party, though.![]()
How?
GamePass is all the more reason for MS to go 3rd party, though.![]()
I mean this is MS we are talking about, games havent been a priority to then for the past 3-4 years. Hopefully that changes this genAs long as the games are priority I couldn't give a fuck where they sell them.
How is that a question?How?
How is that a question?
Everybody wins in that scenario.Because Game Pass which is supported by third parties and is valued because of the third party relationships, doesn't somehow mean Xbox should go third party. Nobody wins in that scenario.
Everybody wins in that scenario.
Besides Minecraft what have they put on Playstation? They tried Cuphead and Ori on Swicth and they have already stated that wont be happening again anytime soon.
How?
And 3rd parties get more exposure if MS remains the same, thus not being able to put GamePass on Playstation and Nintendo? Because that's already 2 massive platforms they miss out on if they make games exclusive to GamePass.Except they don't. Third parties get the same amount of exposure, micrsooft makes less money, whoever the platform holder is has to now give money to Microsoft instead of just the third party, and the price of Game pass would have to go up making it less enticing for consumers. So who wins exactly?
And 3rd parties get more exposure if MS remains the same, thus not being able to put GamePass on Playstation and Nintendo? Because that's already 2 massive platforms they miss out on if they make games exclusive to GamePass.
That includes MS, btw.
Getting someone to spend $500 on a single day is much more difficult than 3 people spending $15 a month 12 times over a course of 7 years.
Besides games they've put on Playstation, they won't put games on Playstation? Its just a bad argument. They put a bunch of games on PS and Switch, but hey they said it "wont be happening again".
It happening at all is enough to maybe give this a rest man. I've heard this argument so many times, oh besides Fable, what have they put on PC? Oh they already said Halo 2 is the last and "wont be happening again anytime soon" only for it to happen again..... So no point in this, the fact that its shifted from not happening at all, to ok it happened but never again, ok it happened again but beside game XYZ, what else etc.
At some point, you will be saying stuff like "besides Gamepass and all the Halo games on PS and Nintendo, what have they put on Playstation and Nintendo?" or They tried Halo, but you won't see Gears or Hellblade 2 and 3 as they said "wont be happening again anytime soon".
How on earth do you know you won't be saying that come the ending of next gen?
I mean....last gen, did you even expect to be saying the words
"Besides Minecraft what have they put on Playstation? They tried Cuphead and Ori on Swicth" but hey you truly know where this is going to end or something? Even with MS literally saying to your face they want their games on "EVERY DEVICE"?
Because that service covers all platforms and Playstation and Nintendo would just be part of it.You neglected the other 75 percent of my answer but whatever.
Why would any game maker want to go on a service thats third party to a platform? Again, nobody wins in that scenario. Microsoft makes less as they have to give a cut to the platform, the platform holder doesn't get nearly as much because they are losing out the revenue they would get from supporting the game through regular publisher deals, and the maker loses becasuse they either get paid less since Microsoft loses more money or they get the same amount of money but miss out on potential sales of their product.
Literally no one wins.
I knew that, except I cant get my PS4 controller to work on my PC. Its damn annoying.Software and services is what makes the sales. The only company making profit on consoles I believe is Nintendo but that's because they always have the weakest hardware and cheapest price and they are an exception to the rule.
Also, who still buys music CD anymore? Do your cars even have a cd player anymore? Most people just sub to spotify, connect bluetooth to their phone and that's it.
Services like Game Pass and xCloud is the future of gaming. Whether people like it or not, that's where it is going. Why do you think Sony partenred up with Microsoft for the cloud stuff? Because Microsoft is #1 when it comes to cloud technology and Sony wants to bring that technology over to PS Now and evolve it for themselevs as well. It's a win/ win for both
A regular consumer will always take the convenience and cheapest/efficient route. I don't understand how people don't see this. Look at Netflix and look at Spotify.
Fun fact, did you know you can stream Bloodborne on PS Now to your PC? Most people have no clue.
my head reading the postYou neglected the other 75 percent of my answer but whatever.
Why would any game maker want to go on a service thats third party to a platform? Again, nobody wins in that scenario. Microsoft makes less as they have to give a cut to the platform, the platform holder doesn't get nearly as much because they are losing out the revenue they would get from supporting the game through regular publisher deals, and the maker loses becasuse they either get paid less since Microsoft loses more money or they get the same amount of money but miss out on potential sales of their product.
Literally no one wins.
No it really doesn't. If MS is content with keeping the division profitable, it doesn't matter if they sell the most consoles or do it through a subscription service. Because you place priority on it, doesn't mean they do. Maybe their profit increases as they include the PC market in game pass and maybe it reduces dependence on console sales. It also sucks people into their ecosystem increasing the potential for others to buy their consoles. $15 a month investment instead of a $500+ during an economic downfall could keep profits steady while being less dependant on new console sales.What you wrote defies logic, reason, and common sense. If you sell more consoles, then you sell more games unless the console was bought by some collector who keeps it in the box. Yes, selling more games on PC also results in more games sold. But that has no bearing, at all, to the simple premise that more consoles sold = more games sold.
Because that service covers all platforms and Playstation and Nintendo are just part of it.
Besides, those 3rd parties can still release their games the regular way and don't miss out on those sales, as they would've gotten them anyway and not everyone will sub to GamePass.
So what do they lose?
Hey, welcome to MS' strategy.Gp doesn't make sense in that scenario.
If GP was available on Playstation and lets say Dirt 5 was coming to GP day 1. If I am Microsoft I have to pay an amount of money to get that game on my service. Not only that, I have to give a cut to every single platform I am on besides Playstation. Nintendo, Roku, PC, Steam, Origin, whatever. Every single platform holder wants their cut. To be able to compensate that I have to either charge the consumer more or charge the developer less.
If they charge the consumer more to compensate for this you have to charge significantly more. You have to not only charge more to pay the developer but you now also have to charge more because the more you charge the consumer, the bigger the cut the platform holder is going to take. so I now have to triple my $9.99 to $29.99 a month. Instantly my service looks far less enticing. So whats the solution? Get less bigger profile games to keep the cost down? Have less games on the service in general? Sure but then the service is less enticing. Which means I am not going to get nearly as many subscribers as I would. So that larger market share doesn't do much for me if I can't reach them.
If I am a developer why would I take the option that gives me less money from Microsoft? I am not going to sign that deal because it doesn't give me anything but a little bit of money in my pocket and now I am losing out on a ton of potential sales on Nintendo Switch and PS4 to be on this service. Even if I am available on those stores for regular price, if I am on GP the amount of money i am going to lose out on by singing the GP deal doesn't do me any good. Even if I get exposure it doesn't matter because they discovered it in GP which doesn't turn into a sale for me.
LIke I said earlier, theres a reason Disney decided to make their own service instead of keeping the deal with Netflix. Even though netflix has more subscribers they make more money even though they charge half as much. They can do this because they control whats on the platform. They don't have to do the work to go to publishers and try to make deals where they lose money because of their cut to the publisher. Being the publisher means people not only come to you, but you get to dictate the deals. You control everything. By having the control and making the publishers come to you, you dont have to take cuts on your own product and you get to reap the benefits of having content coming to your platform without having to pay full price for it.
Except they aren't digging a hole because they own the platforms where Game Pass is available.Hey, welcome to MS' strategy.
This is the hole they're digging for themselves.
Well, it's just a matter of time. The writing's on the wall.Except they aren't digging a hole because they own the platforms where Game Pass is available.
Well, it's just a matter of time. The writing's on the wall.
So is your "troll" accusation because you dislike what I'm saying.Sure it is, Your lame attempt to troll is lame.
Apparently not... Those 3 subs can generate more than $500 in 7 yearsThey'd still rather have that upfront from 1 person rather than relying on 3 subs.
You aren't saying anything. Every argument you attempt to make defies the market and you dont even try to defend yourself either due to laziness or incomprehension of business. But hey, keep trying.So is your "troll" accusation because you dislike what I'm saying.![]()
Why are you using so many words and deflections for your apparent position that less consoles sold = more games sold?No it really doesn't. If MS is content with keeping the division profitable, it doesn't matter if they sell the most consoles or do it through a subscription service. Because you place priority on it, doesn't mean they do. Maybe their profit increases as they include the PC market in game pass and maybe it reduces dependence on console sales. It also sucks people into their ecosystem increasing the potential for others to buy their consoles. $15 a month investment instead of a $500+ during an economic downfall could keep profits steady while being less dependant on new console sales.
Purely laziness. Been getting into this discussion too often. Go through my post-history if you want to get the full story.You aren't saying anything. Every argument you attempt to make defies the market and you dont even try to defend yourself either due to laziness or incomprehension of business. But hey, keep trying.
Purely laziness. Been getting into this discussion too often. Go through my post-history if you want to get the full story.
But I'll give you this one last time:
MS is at a crossroad, either doing what they've done so far, or going 3rd party.
Next-gen will be make-it-or-break it and I don't see them making it.
So what I said is their best-case scenario going forward.
Theres nothing to give a rest.
You are pulling rare scenarios
You have no argument other than "well they did this one thing back then so therefore this other thing will happen.
Comparing Minecraft which is a game they did not create and was already on all devices
And you keep saying they want their game on every device till you a re blue in the face. They never said they want to support every device natively.
By your logic Sony should go third party.
Not if you broaden your market.. ala PC support. Pretty sure MS will be just fine.
I disagree. Its tiring hearing a argument about MS won't do this or that when such comments will be made again the next gen with even more games, services that go to other platforms. Prepare yourself for the same exact argument ending of next gen where you just start saying stuff like "Besides Gamepass what have they put on Playstation and Nintendo?" . Its just a series of goal post. People stated that about Mac and MS put games on Mac, the stated that about PC and they put games on PC, then they stated, "ok on PC, but not Steam", then they put games on Steam, then it was "ok Steam, but Quatum Break isn't Forza or Halo, those will stay", then Forza came to PC, "ok Forza came, but not Halo" Halo announced for PC and on and on and on and on.
its tiring bud. Its a bunch of people even ignoring the actual publisher saying they want games on EVERY DEVICE.
Nope. Minecraft dungeons literally came out 2020, as in this year on PS4 and Switch so....
Well sir, that is the most logical and rational thing to assume. That they did it before, will continue to do it and will likely do the very thing they openly stated they wanted, ie put games on EVERY DEVICE. You telling me it makes more sense to just ignore reality, pretend they will never do it and then proceed to even ignore the companies own message about wanting games on every device and even ignore them putting games on PS4, PC and Switch in 2020? That makes more sense? smh
Yet Minecraft DUNGEONS was made by them and they still put it on many devices....
Minecraft Dungeons
Fight your way through an all-new action-adventure game, inspired by classic dungeon crawlers and set in the Minecraft universe Brave the dungeons alone, or team up with friends Up to four players can battle together through action-packed, treasure-stuffed, wildly varied levels – all in an epic...store.playstation.com
They didn't need to, if they had no desire to actually put games on every device regardless of platform holder, they would have been pretty clear about then when they made the comment. Every device very much is a clear message. When they say that in 2018 and you see Minecraft dungeons on XB, PC, PS4 and Switch, are we to suddenly believe that had nothing to do with the very comment about putting games on every device? Sounds like native support to me =)
Yet Sony's messaging doesn't really state they desire that with all their titles and they are the market leader currently. They have options.
MS is currently looking at the 3rd failed generation in a row, the 4th already looking like they are DOA. When they start saying stuff like they want their games on every device, its clear they are seeking another strategy based on many failures, 3rd party is something they basically must do to even continue this. Sony moving 110 million units with PS4, BEFORE PS5's release basically means putting titles on PC is simply a option for them, not a requirement to exist like....some.
edit. and relax on trying to call people "Trolls" or "shallow" or "lazy" simply because they see this differently then you. You are even arguing against the words of the very publisher we are talking about. We are suppose to ignore what MS said, ignore games are coming to PS4 and Switch by them and pretend more install base is bad for them or something.
Thats a lot to ignore man....
Seems to me like the shift from hardware only to an ecosystem is the epitome of expansion. The philosophy that sales are a marathon and finding a niche that you can fill also seems smart to me. Gamepass and backwards compatibility offer a ton of value to a new console that typically takes several years to build a library for, especially with one being released during an economic downturn.What happened to the XBOX market? How and why don't they care about expanding that?
why disposable? You have the option to buy any game available on game pass and at a discounted price at that. If owning the game forever is what you want and not just playing it, then that's covered too, unlike Stadia.
EVERY DEVICE, which isnt even what he said in the context of the quote you are speaking of. He was asked about mobile and then said billions of devices. You really think he meant. "yeah we are gonna put halo infinite on Android with full support." If thats what you think then you are deluded.
Im pretty confident in my opinion and Ill even go as far to say that if Microsoft announces they are bringing any First Party IP to anything other than Xbox and PC (meaning any platform they dont own) in the next 3 years without a service attached to it (meaning native) I will let you pick my avatar for 6 months.
What am I suppose to think when they are literally saying "every device"? Oh they mean less? What MORE devices could they be talking about? They already put titles on PC, PS, XB, Mac and many more, to pretend they don't mean Android or IOS is silly when clearly that is feasible with streaming and that is their end goal, as in even the streaming tech they showed off was RUNNING ON ANDROID, it sounds silly to even pretend they won't, when they already are showing it off on the platform....
This is what they stated.
"Our focus is on bringing console quality games that you see on TV or PC to any device. I want to see the creators that I have relationships with reach all two billion people who play games, and not have to turn their studio into something that makes match-3 games rather than story-driven single player games. Because that’s the only way to reach a bigger platform. That is our goal: to bring high-quality games to every device possible on the planet.”
![]()
E3 2018: Microsoft's gaming chiefs on the future of Xbox
The company is investing in studios in attempt to win over next generation of gamerswww.theguardian.com
annnnnnd
![]()
Microsoft shows off Project xCloud with Forza running on an Android phone | TechCrunch
Microsoft has shared some more information and the first look at Project xCloud. The company has been working on a cloud game streaming service for atechcrunch.com
So my god, who am I going to believe? You who just wants it to NOT happen, or MS who is saying they want games on every device, proceeds to put games on PS and Nintendo, proceeds to demo XCloud on ANDROID...
smh....my god, the fact that it must be within 3 years and not the ending of the gen or next gen if they failed at moving enough units makes very little sense. Then "without a service attached" smh.
I'd believe your point if you had anything valid from MS to even suggest it wasn't going to happen other then your opinion and word alone as now even you have began a goal post knowing likely it will happen in some form.
Now it must be "native" and "without service attached"?
So you are not even confident yourself enough to even say the whole generation, regardless of service, streaming etc, you already know such a thing is likely as to why you even narrowed it down. So how on earth is anyone suppose to believe they won't go 3rd party, when you've already basically made it clear that you likely see that service being else where with those titles to even bother only stating in "native" form without a "service" and "within 3 years".... it sounds to me like you know its likely going to happen in some form and likely deep next gen as to why such a strange goal post....
They'd still rather have that upfront from 1 person rather than relying on 3 subs.
You really don't seem to grasp the difference between a service and native support. I literally agree with you about some things and then you come back like I am saying you are wrong. i said they are bringing Xcloud to android. I literally have said that they will support phones via xcloud including android. I never said they won't bring stuff to android. I said they won't in a native fashion. If you dont understand why that is important I suggest you educate yourself on eco systems and how they work and how people are paid. Bringing a service to a platform is an entirely different approach than putting a game on a store front. Which I outlined in posts to you and PsykoDad.
Fine make it 8 years. They will not bring games that will run on a native device to any platform from a first party IP without a service attached to any platform other than Xbox and PC. If you can't grasp that then I am not sure what else to say.
Third party does not equal bringing xcloud to a device. It is not the same thing. That is not going third party. Is being able to play Blooodborne on PC through Playstation now mean that Sony has gone third party?
Sounds like a lot of goal post moving to me.
"Third party does not equal bringing xcloud to a device. It is not the same thing."
Smh, thats like saying EA must not be a 3rd party publisher cause Origin must not be the same thing as Steam or "native" support. 3rd party support is 3rd party support. Digital, streaming, physical etc. Suddenly moving this goal post as it being playable by stream isn't being a 3rd party publisher doing 3rd party things is just riduculus. So when you can't take the fact, you start attacking the method of support, NOW it streaming doesn't mean its on a system or the company is a 3rd party publisher etc despite them saying they want to put games on every device. Whats next? Digital isn't really support? So you sound like you are already pre-pared for Gamepass to be on PS and Nintendo with this whole "it is not the same thing, thus isn't really a game and you are not really playing it thus MS isn't 3rd partyz"
"s being able to play Blooodborne on PC through Playstation now mean that Sony has gone third party?" When SONY SAYS THE WANT THAT ON EVERY DEVICE BUD.
You once again completely miss everything.
So answer my question. Is Bloodborne being on Now which can be played on devices that are not PlayStations mean it's a third party game?
Getting the money upfront on a console sale is much more reliable than hoping those 3 people stay subbed on Gamespass for an entire year at full price. That's not really even debatable.
lol If the rumor is true, its on multiple systems isn't it? 1 of which clearly not owned by Sony right?
Did you think I was going to say something else so you didn't have to deal with MS making a comment about wanting ALL of their titles to be on EVERY DEVICE going forward? That didn't just apply to MS bud, that applies to anyone making those statements and then behaving as such. Its why i used EA, Activision, Ubisoft and many more as examples. You seem to think bringing up Sony would have me change my mind or something. Its even funnier as thats the only thing you now suddenly want to talk about.
So it won't happen even though MS wants it to and says they want it on every device, but hey you said you don't want that so it won't magically....
Its not real support if its streaming cause that is voodoo apparently and doesn't count to move goal post
Ok its on Android, but that doesn't count cause another goal post must be moved
oh but Sony might with Bloodborne (off topic mind you) so it shouldn't count, if another company might do it so I should not upset you or something? Really?
So when Sony says they want that on every device and proceed to do so, then we can talk about Sony being a 3rd party publisher, but I find it ode that you understood that with 1 game rumored and nothing even remotely by Sony suggesting that would be the norm, yet MS openly saying they want it on every device, then proceeding to get games on PS, Nintendo, PC and Android must not mean they want games on many devices, even if they say they want games on many devices and actions reflect they want that and behave as such.......
Thats a lot ignore bud, as in....its easier to add you to the ignore list then to even waste any more post..... This wouldn't be the first time someone has claimed MS wouldn't do this or that, only to have MS be like "hold my mountain dew"
Never mind that Sony came up with PSNow long before GamePass. It's MS that is the threat to console manufacturing because they created a service too.It is the path we are heading towards. If you can't see that then you are blind. Sony seem to be sticking with traditional consoles. As are Nintendo. Microsoft, because of them getting their assholes handed to them, don't want the traditional route anymore so will go an alternate path. I'm not a believer in what they are doing and I hope it fails for them and for the future of console (and PC) gaming.
lol If the rumor is true, its on multiple systems isn't it? 1 of which clearly not owned by Sony right?
Did you think I was going to say something else so you didn't have to deal with MS making a comment about wanting ALL of their titles to be on EVERY DEVICE going forward? That didn't just apply to MS bud, that applies to anyone making those statements and then behaving as such. Its why i used EA, Activision, Ubisoft and many more as examples. You seem to think bringing up Sony would have me change my mind or something. Its even funnier as thats the only thing you now suddenly want to talk about.
So it won't happen even though MS wants it to and says they want it on every device, but hey you said you don't want that so it won't magically....
Its not real support if its streaming cause that is voodoo apparently and doesn't count to move goal post
Ok its on Android, but that doesn't count cause another goal post must be moved
oh but Sony might with Bloodborne (off topic mind you) so it shouldn't count, if another company might do it so I should not upset you or something? Really?
So when Sony says they want that on every device and proceed to do so, then we can talk about Sony being a 3rd party publisher, but I find it odd that you understood that with 1 game rumored and nothing even remotely by Sony suggesting that would be the norm, yet MS openly saying they want it on every device, then proceeding to get games on PS, Nintendo, PC and Android must not mean they want games on many devices, even if they say they want games on many devices and actions reflect they want that and behave as such.......
Thats a lot ignore bud, as in....its easier to add you to the ignore list then to even waste any more post..... This wouldn't be the first time someone has claimed MS wouldn't do this or that, only to have MS be like "hold my mountain dew", I mean....MS THEMSELVES don't agree with you. Thats saying a lot...
That’s why I think Lockhart will be cheap streaming box, makes sense with that strategy.
Im pretty confident in my opinion and Ill even go as far to say that if Microsoft announces they are bringing any First Party IP to anything other than Xbox and PC (meaning any platform they dont own) in the next 3 years without a service attached to it (meaning native) I will let you pick my avatar for 6 months.
Anyone who has paid attention to MS since Nadella took over can see he is shifting them to a service company. That is where they are now. Their goal isn't to sell plastic boxes with chips in them, it is to get people using the services they have set up.
A cheap streaming box, like a $20 cube with a 5 year old ARM chip in it? Because that's about all you need for streaming.
Just to be clear, although MS sells Windows, Windows isn't like a game console. It runs unsigned code, it's just an operating system. The only part of the Windows platform that could be considered console-esque is the Microsoft Store in Windows. And sure, MS has their games on that, but they also have their games on Steam, which is a totally separate platform, and they have to give Valve a cut of each sale.
How is Halo MCC or Sea of Thieves on Steam any different from those games on PlayStation? It really is not.
That's a fair point but supporting a storefront on PC when you already have the code done for your own store, which the code is basically identical, is a bit different than porting your game to another console.
What defines a company being first party clearly seems to be in flux. If supporting PLaystation Now on PC isn't being third party then supporting other store fronts on a platform you own shouldn't be either.