• 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.

Semantic: Doesn't "Game pass on every screen" makes the xbox brand itself "Third party"?

If the goal is to have game pass on everything, non exclusive to Microsoft hardware, by definition that is a third party service? Xbox /Microsoft also publishes game. That is a third party publisher.

Why bring this up? Because the metric of success in gaming is all messed up: is Microsoft going to then track "games pass is the most downloaded gaming service"(by passively comparing itself to close services ala PSN and Nintendo Online) from "most subscription" from "most hardware sales".
 

Pelta88

Member
hulk-avengers.gif
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?

bender

What time is it?

Ozriel

M$FT
Why bring this up? Because the metric of success in gaming is all messed up: is Microsoft going to then track "games pass is the most downloaded gaming service"(by passively comparing itself to close services ala PSN and Nintendo Online) from "most subscription" from "most hardware sales".

Excuse Me Wow GIF by Mashable


Erm…they track number of active subscribers. Is that what you find difficult to understand?
 

Red5

Member
What if they're still making their hardware and Gamepass is cheaper on their hardware than competing hardware? I think they want to use competing hardware to funnel users to their own for higher profit margins.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
It is all relative to the platform. For Steam, games like Spider-man and Uncharted are third party. For PlayStation, Minecraft has been a third party title for a while, regardless of who owned Mohjang. From a Steam perspective, Halo MCC is a third party game.
 
Last edited:
We have examples of Google selling hardware and software services to direct competitors. They're happy doing both, so is MS.

If Xbox needs to become third party only they will but those days are a big if and/or when. For now and the perceivable future MS will do both.
 

Robb

Gold Member
It is all relative to the platform. For Steam, games like Spider-man and Uncharted are third party. For PlayStation, Minecraft has been a third party title for a while, regardless of who owned Mohjang. From a Steam perspective, Halo MCC is a third party game.
Pretty much what I was going to say. If you release your titles outside of your own platform you’ll be 3rd party from someones perspective.
 
Last edited:

Chukhopops

Member
Back when the whole « going third party » discussion was about Nintendo, the criteria was dropping the hardware part.

As long as MS produces their own console hardware they aren’t third party.
 

Fess

Member
Back when the whole « going third party » discussion was about Nintendo, the criteria was dropping the hardware part.

As long as MS produces their own console hardware they aren’t third party.
I don’t think console hardware is needed. Netflix have their own first party content and Microsoft and Sony will have their own first party content too when the subscription and launcher and cloud computing future is here.
 
Last edited:
The hardware will always be the weakest part of the Xbox business. Gamepass has made it totally irrelevant. Even the XSX, which has advantages over the PS5, hasn't really measured up that well. XSX versions of games are rarely better performing than their PS5 counterparts, and on the occasions that they are, it's still often only incrementally superior. And if you're the type of gamer who is after the highest resolutions, textures, framerates, effects, etc., then you are much better off mainlining PC than console.

The hard fact is that Gamepass has almost completely cannibalized Xbox's hardware business. By design, there is very little reason to invest in Xbox hardware. Their games come day and date to PC, and the Gamepass footprint with its "play anywhere" mentality just makes Xbox hardware more and more of a losing propositon.

If you can only afford to buy a single console, it will almost certainly be a Switch because there is no (legal) way to play their games anywhere else. If you can either afford two consoles, or just don't really enjoy Nintendo's first party output, then you'll pickup a PS5 because while Sony's first party games do make their way to PC, it's often a two to three year gap before those games are available there and many gamers aren't willing to wait that length of time for the hot new property.

And then there is the issue of the XSS. A pretty scrappy little console early this gen when most games were cross-gen, but now that we're slowly shifting into true current generation titles, it's weaknesses are showing. And there are not an insignificant amount of XSS owners out there. It will hold back the full experience for people that are only able to play on it.

With so many ways to play Xbox first party titles without needing Xbox hardware, it feels more and more that their hardware business will eventually become a niche rather than a pillar.
 
Xbox is coping so hard with being in third place for hardware that they're trying to turn into the Game Pass company.

Still, as long as they manufacture hardware and maintain a walled garden storefront, they are a first party.
Manufacturing hardware is expensive. You shouldn't do it unless you actually have a path to profitability.

Of course, there was that poster i talked to last time, who openly suggested that MS can just keep making and selling Xboxes forever for the fun of it, because "it doesn't make a difference to the company balance sheet".

That MS customer doesn't realize that "Failure Doesn't Matter" is why Xbox is third place. That if you are rewarded for failure then you will never succeed.
 

Little Mac

Member
I think xbox, pc, smart tvs, phones/tablets will get the gamepass service. I also think Sony and Nintendo consoles will get select xbox titles. And yes, in that scenario, I guess you could consider MS third party.
 

cireza

Member
People struggling a putting X company in Y category.

They are not doing the same thing as every other company, they are doing several things, they are in several categories ? So it has to suck, they have to fail, right ?
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Xbox is coping so hard with being in third place for hardware that they're trying to turn into the Game Pass company.

Still, as long as they manufacture hardware and maintain a walled garden storefront, they are a first party.
This is the harsh truth.

They tried competing in console sales. They came third (58 million), behind PlayStation (~118 million) and Nintendo (~132 million).

They pivoted to Game Pass so they could get ahead, only to end up with only the third-biggest subscription service (~25 million), behind PlayStation Plus (~48 million) and Nintendo Switch Online (~31 million).

Sarim-Akhtar.png
 
This is the harsh truth.

They tried competing in console sales. They came third (58 million), behind PlayStation (~118 million) and Nintendo (~132 million).

They pivoted to Game Pass so they could get ahead, only to end up with only the third-biggest subscription service (~25 million), behind PlayStation Plus (~48 million) and Nintendo Switch Online (~31 million).

Sarim-Akhtar.png
Let's see those sub comparisons now, because GamePass at 25 mill was before they rolled Gold into it, and PS+'s number is for every tier.
 
As exclusives go away the definitions will need to change.

No one will be buying hardware because it’s the only place to play something any more IMO (thank fuck).

Hardware will still exist (not everyone wants to stream or can stream) but I think the hardware battle will be based on quality rather than availability. Plays best on, not plays only on…
 

Chukhopops

Member
They tried competing in console sales. They came third (58 million), behind PlayStation (~118 million) and Nintendo (~132 million).
Why compare the Xbox One to the Switch and not the WiiU which came much closer from a timeline perspective?
They pivoted to Game Pass so they could get ahead, only to end up with only the third-biggest subscription service (~25 million), behind PlayStation Plus (~48 million) and Nintendo Switch Online (~31 million).
Why compare a sub required for online with a game catalog sub? Cause an apple for apple comparison would be this:
In a recently released report, Sony revealed that PlayStation Plus Premium had 8 million subscribers as of March 2023, with PS Plus Extra sitting at 6.1 million.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
No.
It just means Phill car salesman pitch is working and people are repeating this bs
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Let's see those sub comparisons now, because GamePass at 25 mill was before they rolled Gold into it, and PS+'s number is for every tier.

41.7 million including Core from last reporting via independent authors as of October this year.

 

Jigsaah

Member
It does on PC.
Correct. That's why this post doesn't make sense. Just because xbox wants to put it on MORE screens it makes them solely 3rd party?

Here lemme simplify it for the glue eaters in this forum. BOTH SONY AND XBOX ARE BOTH 1ST AND 3RD PARTY PUBLISHERS.
 
Correct. That's why this post doesn't make sense. Just because xbox wants to put it on MORE screens it makes them solely 3rd party?

Here lemme simplify it for the glue eaters in this forum. BOTH SONY AND XBOX ARE BOTH 1ST AND 3RD PARTY PUBLISHERS.
Except Xbox is putting al theyr firstparty games on PC day one...and Sony isn't....
 

CamHostage

Member
If the goal is to have game pass on everything, non exclusive to Microsoft hardware, by definition that is a third party service? Xbox /Microsoft also publishes game. That is a third party publisher.

Ultimately no, because they would be the conduit through which publishers distribute their software, and would collect the fees as well as claim the customer base. The box is just a method to get to what they want to get out of the market.

Why bring this up? Because the metric of success in gaming is all messed up: is Microsoft going to then track "games pass is the most downloaded gaming service"(by passively comparing itself to close services ala PSN and Nintendo Online) from "most subscription" from "most hardware sales".

There are many metrics for "success" these days, and MS and everybody else measures them all. Nobody just looks at one metric and then calls the analysis done. Nintendo didn't always have the best-selling console, but their game sales and production budgets and target market attraction has always been enviable.

So, it's been said a few times, but I'm wondering, why do you care? Unless you're concerned that MS changing which numbers it reports in order to show itself in the best light ends the long tradition of declaring a winner at the end of every console generation, I'm not sure what difference this makes? MS is never going to win the most number of consoles sold, but that doesn't mean Xbox isn't a market value in other ways, including ways which didn't exist in the past.
 
What?

Does Playstation releasing games on PC and mobile make them 3rd party? Or is that not enough screens...jesus fuck.

By OP's criteria, Nintendo is the only genuine first party left in the industry right now.

It is all relative to the platform. For Steam, games like Spider-man and Uncharted are third party. For PlayStation, Minecraft has been a third party title for a while, regardless of who owned Mohjang. From a Steam perspective, Halo MCC is a third party game.

Sony and MS are Super 3rd Party

Nintendo is Real Party

Correct. That's why this post doesn't make sense. Just because xbox wants to put it on MORE screens it makes them solely 3rd party?

Here lemme simplify it for the glue eaters in this forum. BOTH SONY AND XBOX ARE BOTH 1ST AND 3RD PARTY PUBLISHERS.

Except Xbox is putting al theyr firstparty games on PC day one...and Sony isn't....

Sony still at this time consider PlayStation hardware their primary.

If we are playing with the semantic, Playstation is still a hardware brand, while Xbox is a service.

Sony treat PC like it's does PSVR, and accessory to PlayStation. Xbox treats PC as an extension of it service. Two hugely different mindset
 

Jigsaah

Member
Sony still at this time consider PlayStation hardware their primary.

If we are playing with the semantic, Playstation is still a hardware brand, while Xbox is a service.

Sony treat PC like it's does PSVR, and accessory to PlayStation. Xbox treats PC as an extension of it service. Two hugely different mindset
RqFkGy.gif
 
Top Bottom