-
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.
The Future Of The Xbox Brand
- Thread starter thicc_girls_are_teh_best
- Start date
- Opinion Analysis Platform
Dick Jones
Gold Member
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jennings
Member
What the hell? Don't make posts like that.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Okay, bet.
Publicly promoting your favorite criclejerk on GAF?
I post where I post. Kinda funny that was your takeaway tho.
Xbox as you know it today will not exist within six years.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
.. Because you want more threads and opinions like OP?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well, someone's bound to read it. If even one person reads it with an open mind, then mission accomplished.
TBF, the Sony part already kind of came true. They're still missing a few things, but can get there.
Keystone as a device just makes too much sense. It's temporarily shelved, but when the economics make more sense, they will push it. I mean look at the subsidizations they're taking on Series S literally right now. They can afford Keystone, it's a question of pricing relative to costs.
They don't need to hit $99/$129 for Keystone, that could be an unrealistic pricing bracket for them all things considered.
Verdict:
Wont happen
Wont happen. Companies still do promotional free month.
This has to be a satire. Anyone who thinks this, needs to touch grass. PS will only get some of activision games. Same with nintendo. But not all.
They are already doing that.
wont happen
MS is dumb. They have no brain for that.
Again, MS is dumb. They want power, and stupid shit.
And I believe in santa,
C'mon, we both knew you were gonna be against this from the jump
TBH it likely won't. However, I can definitely see them reducing the conversion worth of MS Rewards. Think of it as self-induced digital currency (the Rewards aren't classified as an actual digital currency, that's just the only term for them that comes to mind for me) inflation.
Makes sense. However, if they can project generating good sales revenue from a week's early access before dropping into GamePass...why not increase that to a month? Why not three months? What they did with FH5 was a test of that concept, but for the biggest of their 1P games I can see them doing it more often and for larger windows between early access (based on pre-orders) and then going into GamePass.
So maybe I can reword that part to reflect pre-GamePass release specifically towards preorders, not necessarily the game being freely purchasable (i.e without preordering).
feynoob
Banned
Are you Michael Pachter of gamers?C'mon, we both knew you were gonna be against this from the jump
Your ideas sounds like him.
MarkMe2525
Banned
I don't see how going down a rabbit hole of pointless speculation could be productive.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Michael Pachter gets paid to be wrong on gaming podcasts.
If I'm wrong then at least I honestly felt I was right.
TBF, are they not already doing this to an extent to the bolded? People by and large are not buying Microsoft games on PC through the MS store; they buy it through Steam, or EGS, or GOG, all of which are storefronts Microsoft does not own. You're exaggerating the revenue MS would give up on the 1P content; it would just be 30% going to the storefronts, while Microsoft retains the other 70%.
Unless you're alluding to the idea of Microsoft giving up potential 3P revenue by the act of opening up their consoles to other storefronts? Which I don't think they would do unless they changed the business model to reflect that of a computer device, and in turn got a deal with other storefront owners for curated GamePass on them. Because the notion that MS would be giving away 99% of their software revenue to Steam, EGS etc. has to be predicated on the idea that MS opening up their Xbox devices for 3P storefronts suddenly means reduced sales of software from their own storefront and getting cut out of sales revenue even though they're hosting other storefronts on their hardware.
But then what would that say to the value of GamePass? If GamePass being on Xbox somehow doesn't depreciate sales on the Xbox storefront (theoretically), but suddenly Steam being on Xbox shifts all those Xbox storefront sales to Steam, then doesn't that just create an instance of Microsoft's storefront offering less value in the eyes of customers who now have the choice?
Of course that all assumes they move Xbox away from the traditional console business model. Which, personally, I think they will do. The revenue cut MS gets from 3P software sales is nothing compared to what they can gain by moving away from the traditional console business model (potentially easier regulatory approval for gaming acquisitions, more gaming clients for Azure, revenue & profit off hardware sales selling at for-profit costs, curated GamePass models for all the major gaming platforms, 1P sales revenue for having 1P content on all the major platforms Day 1).
Like I've been saying, see the forest from the trees
Dick Jones
Gold Member
The big takeaway is first party is day 1 on GamePass is the biggest plus in theory. You lose it with pre-orders getting a month early access, keep it under a week so it's close enough to Day 1 but you get the panic buys. Early access going too far back from official launch would kill hype as well as ruin the Day 1 promise.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
It’s doing well in that: It’s always available on shelves when there’s nothing else to grab.
It’s doing bad in that: It’s always available on shelves when there’s nothing else to grab.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well, maybe currently due to the sales promotions and the fact BF and Cyber Monday have happened. But outside of that and I would guess Christmas, it's generally always had notably more muted sales than Series X, PS5, and even the Switch.
That's a good way to look at it. Although like a couple of others were saying earlier, the whole Day 1 promise has already been broken considering releasing it in any other form outside of GamePass, ahead of it going into GamePass, means on a technical level it's not coming "Day 1" into GamePass.
But that can all be debated on grounds of semantics, generally.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
If the technical hurdles could be resolved why not upgrade all Xbox controllers being manufactured going forward to include Keystone 100%? The parts/manufacturing volume and distribution as well as sub/MTX potential seems a perfect fit for helping deliver their 2Billion players marketing target while driving down development resources and costs plus value adding. A cloud console in a controller, stream to any device in any protocol, bang a store in there and allow other publishers to use your delivery framework and charge a low revenue share overhead etc.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
That's actually not a bad idea. However, I think MS want their cloud device to appear "neutral" enough so as not to intimidate or throw off mainstream and casual customers. If it's packaged in a controller design, that would likely alienate those crowds, which is what Microsoft would not want to do.
But the idea of a controller with built-in streaming tech and a port for a dockable portable monitor (and a way to wireless broadcast a game feed to a television) sounds pretty appealing in its own right.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
I'd happily buy my daughter a xCloud based controller to add on to our GP family plan, she could jump between the lounge room TV, her phone, one of our PCs etc. Pretty cool idea really and she's mostly into things like SIM4, pretty perfect for cloud stuff.
At the end of the day, having Keystone you're going to play with some sort of controller. I understand the need for Keystone as a standalone app, USB stick and other avenues e.g. there are plenty of households with one or many game controllers, cutting down to a $99 price point and using whatever input(s) and screen(s) you have is ideal. I just think rather than drop the idea for now in favour of the app, why not go an evolution of your own volume business to get that out there first. I know if I was looking at another standard xbox controller or elite controller I'd buy the one with xCloud built in to be part of my exising GP sub. It's useful for many things e.g. travel, kids, other screens, portable, private etc. It also makes for an easier sell to partners like Samsung as you're seen to initially be sticking with gaming and leaving Samsung to the entertainment arena.
Then they can build out from there e.g. USB stick later to expand further.
Personally, I'd go even harder if I was MS. Leverage your mammoth scale and personal vs commercial assets e.g. a pocket sized cross Surface + Surface Phone + Xbox + xCloud + GP + Office365 + Keystone/controller with an all in one subscription deal. If they refined things like Google/Samsung does with Windows Link and Samsung DEX (can run like Samsung DEX but native windows, multi-screen casting etc) they'd have a real push into business (perks built in) and cross the personal entertainment market at the same time. They'd also move into the Apple vs Google territory with tangible exclusive titles, controllers, features (achievements, security, sharing, xbox ecosystem) etc.
I think you get the idea of what these giant companies could be capable of. There's a shit ton of red tape and tech debt between all those systems but my word they could have a wonderful platform like no other backed from their most successful transformations e.g. Xbox, Surface, Azure, Office, Windows, Phone. If you have an overarching design mantra of this the personal and professional benefits a consumer and worker could have are pretty staggering. With WFH changing the game of hous working, breaks, mental health, talent and hiring/retention issues all of this sort of work and play integration might just be happy and productive the way forward.
Last edited:
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Most of this is based off you're odd conspiracies from before, and still ignoring or misunderstanding words that came out of executives mouths. You've also been all over the Series S and trying to act like Gamepass is dying and other things you have pushed in other threads. This thread is just one big hub of all the conspiracy theories, but without any links or any evidence supporting most of it.
This would be an example You've been misattributing their statements for once now. You were even pushing a like that you still have not backed up about a "mission statement" about the Series being made to "sell to the masses that buy at a lower price point late in the gen" which was never the goal and is contradicted not only by Phil but also an engineer who worked on the S and linked before. Or how you took Phil saying growth slowed for gamepass on console somehow meant it wasn't working, instead of the logical conclusion that 28% was still big growth, and that higher growth will return when there's more console supply for consumers to by.
Almost everything otherwise in this thread is based on the same level of logic, just over-expanded to make it look like an intellectual argument but it's not.
It will happen right after Phillips buys Nintendo.
This would be an example You've been misattributing their statements for once now. You were even pushing a like that you still have not backed up about a "mission statement" about the Series being made to "sell to the masses that buy at a lower price point late in the gen" which was never the goal and is contradicted not only by Phil but also an engineer who worked on the S and linked before. Or how you took Phil saying growth slowed for gamepass on console somehow meant it wasn't working, instead of the logical conclusion that 28% was still big growth, and that higher growth will return when there's more console supply for consumers to by.
Almost everything otherwise in this thread is based on the same level of logic, just over-expanded to make it look like an intellectual argument but it's not.
It will happen right after Phillips buys Nintendo.
Bulletbrain
Member
I think what MS is trying to do is be more and more platform agnostic but instead offer their software and services across the widest range of devices possible. Instead focusing on shifting traditional consoles (at high subsidised prices) the end goal is to get as many people as possible sign up to gamepass and secure the widest market possible for their titles. It could be traditional consoles, PC, mobile, TV, handhelds (I believe the mix percentage of consoles would gradually decline Vs other devices). The Xbox brand will pivot to be a software and services brand.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Forza is one game though and it also happens to have DLC planned and has live service components. Starfield doesn't appear to have any of that. No other Xbox title has does this either.
The digital vs. physical has been a thing for quite a while but still Forza stands as the exception. Until this happens for more than one title I don't see this happening.
I still don't get his odd determination to show the XSS as a failure when all the evidence proves it is the reason Xbox is even competitive hardware sales wise this generation. I guess if people are determined enough no amount of evidence will change their minds. Ah well Xbox will soldier on regardless.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
For families it would actually make more sense than a streaming box especially if a dockable portable screen (something specifically built for the device) were possible. Also could simplify material logistics; for gaming purposes you wouldn't need a box and a controller, just the controller.
For Microsoft it seems to be a question of production costs and maybe logistics, but a suitable streaming box (with solid AV1 decode support) would have still been much cheaper to produce than a Series S, and even if subsidized, would lose less money per unit sold than Series S, and allow for greater volume of production as well as remove a potential bottleneck in having a system like Series S act as the technical floor for 1P software development (since the S requires native ports; Project Keystone would not).
They can push a Project Keystone and GamePass xCloud apps on smart TVs simultaneously but this is the same company that seemingly could not push GamePass and a real VR solution for Xbox simultaneously, even going as far to call VR niche when devices like the Quest 2 have sold more in one year than GamePass saw in peak annual subscriber growth thus far.
Personally the idea of a "streaming stick" just feels tacky to me, but I know it is technically possible. Guess the issue for me is that it would be a dongle hanging off the side of the television and could easily end up broken at the connection point. At least with a small streaming box it's just the HDMI cord and if that gets messed up, the device itself is still perfectly fine.
The additional space of a box would also allow for better Wifi antennas, thus better wireless internet support.
See, this is what they could do IF they shifted Xbox away from the traditional console business model. At the point of throwing in Xbox with the non-gaming devices, that's just another small step towards doing it IMO.
Adhering to the traditional console business model and doing what you're suggesting, however, could probably invite legal problems. At that point it's not hard to say that Microsoft would be heavily leveraging the financial power of their other divisions to aggressive subsidize Xbox costs to end customers in an effort for market share in a way wherein other competitors would have to risk bleeding out cash and possibly risk bankruptcy in order to keep up. It asks the question of where the boundary line should be; at what point should sheer capitalism end and where should some ethical standards WRT fair business practices that create a more level playing field begin.
If OTOH, IMO you shift Xbox into a PC-style Steam Machine type of gaming-orientated computer device, meaning it naturally runs Windows anyway but in a form factor and with hardware features geared towards gaming, and decouples the notion of keeping 1P content to a "box" but rather bring it to devices that run Windows or has some version of GamePass on it (or that Microsoft have developer licenses for), then I think you remove a lot of that concern in the eyes of regulators and just the market in general, and among gamers as well.
I agree, to an extent. But there are always going to be the inherent concerns with big tech having that overarching a hand and presence in the daily functions of people and all aspects of their professional & entertainment lives in such obvious ways.
There's also the issue that, companies that tend to try focusing in all areas of tech, from business to games to entertainment to electronics to medical to government etc., they are always going to have areas where they are weak in. Both Microsoft and Sony have similarities in this regard, just for different sectors of tech-heavy industries.
Usually the people who immediately scream 'conspiracy' do so to downplay legitimacy of the points being addressed. It's much easier to just try hand-waiving it all away with a simple label rather than think critically about what's being talked about.
Just thought I'd remind you of that. And, I've provided evidence into my reasonings on this stuff in past threads, in past posts. You know what my reasonings on some of these things are.
The Series S WAS designed to sell to the mainstream & casual crowds who are more price-conscious and tend to wait until around the midpoint of a generation (when console prices are cheaper) to jump in. You're just being incredibly dense in acknowledging that because it would go against your prevailing thought. Why else would one intentionally design a weaker console to sell for $200 lower MSRP (at least, originally) than the stronger system which, BTW, was constantly marketed and advertised on its power prior to launch knowing that appealed to the traditional hardcore & core early adopters? Like, don't buy PR statements from Phil and even Xbox engineers so easily dude.
GamePass having slowed on consoles, in a new console generation that has only completed its second year, a year in which no major 1P games released and where the year prior both big 1P games more or less died off in player retention within a span of three months (FH5 lasting a bit longer and having slightly better long-term retention numbers), is as much an admission that the model isn't performing to likely maximal internal projections or desires as wished. I mean MS even outright said that GamePass missed targets by some 70% or something to that effect; that was tied to Satya Nadella's CEO bonus (where GamePass accounts for 5%), but if actual growth ended up being 26% - 28% then it's realistic to assume that expected growth was probably at least around 50%, meaning GamePass growth came in almost 50% below the likely expected non-bonus figure.
The point being, you would think subscriber growth would be higher for consoles that are still relatively young in their lifecycle. OTOH many people and media made it a point to harp on PS+ losing 1.9 million subscribers, but every single one of them conveniently failed to mention that unlike GamePass, PS+ actually saw a revenue increase, indicating that the new revamped tiers were doing exactly what Sony intended them to do: increase revenue from the existing customer base.
You can keep saying this all you want but that isn't going to make your retorts come off as any more credible than what I'm speculating in this very thread.
Zathalus
Member
Most of this is complete nonsense and it's obviously agenda driven. Xbox revenue and console sales have never been higher so now they are going to utterly change the business model?
Come on people, Xbox does not have to beat Playstation to make money or be a relevant console player. This should be obvious.
Come on people, Xbox does not have to beat Playstation to make money or be a relevant console player. This should be obvious.
1. Yup. I think they are waiting for "threshold" for Gold to hit in terms of number of subs vs. Game Pass and if it will hit it, they will get rid of gold. It's ancient and pointless service that is overstaying it's welcome and it makes no sense since Xbox players on PC don't need to pay for MP. So it is strange that PC player of Sea of Thieves don't need to pay for MP while Xbox player in same lobby need to.
2. Nope. It would downgrade a service to the level of PS Plus. First-party games in future will be main growth factor, so getting rid of them would be strange decision. I find it strange that people are even arguing that. Outside of fact that media and players would eat Microsoft alive, it would backfire spectacularly. And also, people love to pretend that since XGS/Bethesda games are in GAme Pass day one, that those games are not selling. Which is bullshit. Yes, first-party games have lower sales because they are in Game Pass. But despite that Sea of Thieves sold 5+ million copies on Steam alone. Starfield will be multimillion seller and other games too. And the main point is - by releasing your games in Game Pass you are trading huge revenue during launch for continues revenue stream during entire year. Yup. You are not getting 70€, but you are getting 13€ every month. And that the point of Game Pass.
3. I don't think Microsoft will bring their own cloud device. They will switch their focus into getting Xbox Cloud Gaming app into TV's or other devices.
4. I tend to agree. They are riding on "Good guy Xbox" mantra, but it is time to get rid of all "cheap deals." I think they are waiting for first-party floodgates to open and then they will end that Gold - Game Pass conversion method.
5. Nope. For Microsoft it would be - You want our games? Gotta allow Game Pass into your console. There are some exceptions like Minecraft or COD of course.
6. Yup. Game Stack is starting to get into shape. Same for GDK. I think that was a part of reason why Microsoft stayed in Xbox business. Since Nadella is "cloud guy." They know that online games needs infrastructure, remote devs need tools and Game developers in general need tools and they can provide them.
7. There is literally no reason to do it. Why would you try to recover your Xbox brand in last 6 years? Just to get rid of it? I think people are reacting better to word Xbox, then they are reacting to "Windows."
8. Ehh. Nope. Microsoft is selling consoles at a loss to recoup everything through sale of content. If you allow Windows to be installed on your Xbox console, you are essentially selling cheap PC and since people can circumvent your store, you are not getting money back. Also, I doubt there is even a huge request for that functionality from console crowd.
9. They can't. They need to sell at a competitive price. If Sony is selling PS6 for 500€, Microsoft can't sell their next console for 700€. It's simple.
10. Nah- That would render all their cloud effort pointless. Company is still betting that in future huge portion of people will be playing through cloud. Microsoft will continue with current philosophy - powerful system, that they can also use as a "brain" behind xCloud and less powerful but cheaper system.
11. I think that main goal for Microsoft in future should be somehow break Google/Apple duopoly and by that opening those stores. Then you can publish your "Xbox app" with purchases and everything. But "Game Pass Lite" with first-party games through Cloud on PlayStation and Switch is also a possibility.
2. Nope. It would downgrade a service to the level of PS Plus. First-party games in future will be main growth factor, so getting rid of them would be strange decision. I find it strange that people are even arguing that. Outside of fact that media and players would eat Microsoft alive, it would backfire spectacularly. And also, people love to pretend that since XGS/Bethesda games are in GAme Pass day one, that those games are not selling. Which is bullshit. Yes, first-party games have lower sales because they are in Game Pass. But despite that Sea of Thieves sold 5+ million copies on Steam alone. Starfield will be multimillion seller and other games too. And the main point is - by releasing your games in Game Pass you are trading huge revenue during launch for continues revenue stream during entire year. Yup. You are not getting 70€, but you are getting 13€ every month. And that the point of Game Pass.
3. I don't think Microsoft will bring their own cloud device. They will switch their focus into getting Xbox Cloud Gaming app into TV's or other devices.
4. I tend to agree. They are riding on "Good guy Xbox" mantra, but it is time to get rid of all "cheap deals." I think they are waiting for first-party floodgates to open and then they will end that Gold - Game Pass conversion method.
5. Nope. For Microsoft it would be - You want our games? Gotta allow Game Pass into your console. There are some exceptions like Minecraft or COD of course.
6. Yup. Game Stack is starting to get into shape. Same for GDK. I think that was a part of reason why Microsoft stayed in Xbox business. Since Nadella is "cloud guy." They know that online games needs infrastructure, remote devs need tools and Game developers in general need tools and they can provide them.
7. There is literally no reason to do it. Why would you try to recover your Xbox brand in last 6 years? Just to get rid of it? I think people are reacting better to word Xbox, then they are reacting to "Windows."
8. Ehh. Nope. Microsoft is selling consoles at a loss to recoup everything through sale of content. If you allow Windows to be installed on your Xbox console, you are essentially selling cheap PC and since people can circumvent your store, you are not getting money back. Also, I doubt there is even a huge request for that functionality from console crowd.
9. They can't. They need to sell at a competitive price. If Sony is selling PS6 for 500€, Microsoft can't sell their next console for 700€. It's simple.
10. Nah- That would render all their cloud effort pointless. Company is still betting that in future huge portion of people will be playing through cloud. Microsoft will continue with current philosophy - powerful system, that they can also use as a "brain" behind xCloud and less powerful but cheaper system.
11. I think that main goal for Microsoft in future should be somehow break Google/Apple duopoly and by that opening those stores. Then you can publish your "Xbox app" with purchases and everything. But "Game Pass Lite" with first-party games through Cloud on PlayStation and Switch is also a possibility.
Yeah it doesn't make sense if you think the revenue driver is the store unless MS believes that there will be no impact to the store revenue. I am not sure about that personally given Steam/Valve's strength.
Xbox as a console will be fine. I think it's just about what MS' plans are with the brand rather than trying to suggest something is a failure.
Personally I don't think many of the bullet points raised will happen. If we are talking about MS' strategy my predictions are these:
- Release keystone some time after June 2023
- Release some of their mobile looking "xbox" games on mobile
- Raise price near or after midyear next year before a major release
- Change the definition of 'day one' with more titles
TBF, are they not already doing this to an extent to the bolded? People by and large are not buying Microsoft games on PC through the MS store; they buy it through Steam, or EGS, or GOG, all of which are storefronts Microsoft does not own. You're exaggerating the revenue MS would give up on the 1P content; it would just be 30% going to the storefronts, while Microsoft retains the other 70%.
Unless you're alluding to the idea of Microsoft giving up potential 3P revenue by the act of opening up their consoles to other storefronts? Which I don't think they would do unless they changed the business model to reflect that of a computer device, and in turn got a deal with other storefront owners for curated GamePass on them. Because the notion that MS would be giving away 99% of their software revenue to Steam, EGS etc. has to be predicated on the idea that MS opening up their Xbox devices for 3P storefronts suddenly means reduced sales of software from their own storefront and getting cut out of sales revenue even though they're hosting other storefronts on their hardware.
But then what would that say to the value of GamePass? If GamePass being on Xbox somehow doesn't depreciate sales on the Xbox storefront (theoretically), but suddenly Steam being on Xbox shifts all those Xbox storefront sales to Steam, then doesn't that just create an instance of Microsoft's storefront offering less value in the eyes of customers who now have the choice?
Of course that all assumes they move Xbox away from the traditional console business model. Which, personally, I think they will do. The revenue cut MS gets from 3P software sales is nothing compared to what they can gain by moving away from the traditional console business model (potentially easier regulatory approval for gaming acquisitions, more gaming clients for Azure, revenue & profit off hardware sales selling at for-profit costs, curated GamePass models for all the major gaming platforms, 1P sales revenue for having 1P content on all the major platforms Day 1).
Like I've been saying, see the forest from the trees
Like I said, you go for verbose entries but they aren’t really that well thought out.
You are imagining that MS would make a console-PC that will have other storefronts like Steam installed. Basically, most people would buy on Steam and install on the ‘xbox’. Essentially, zero revenue for MS.
It also makes no sense since it’ll pretty much be doing what SteamOS machines will be doing, with no real differentiation. Not even a pricing advantage.
This reads like fanfiction written by someone who wants xbox to exit the hardware business.
supernova8
Banned
I think points 1, 3, and 4 will happen.
On point 4 (removing the loopholes), it's impossible to know but I'm guessing the number of people taking advantage of those loopholes is relatively small. Basically folks on GAF plus a few more here and there who are tech savvy and in the know. Perhaps if they were to get rid of said loopholes they would first start bundling a completely free month of Game Pass with every Xbox so that practically every single Xbox sold from that point onward leads to a new Game Pass account data point.
On point 4 (removing the loopholes), it's impossible to know but I'm guessing the number of people taking advantage of those loopholes is relatively small. Basically folks on GAF plus a few more here and there who are tech savvy and in the know. Perhaps if they were to get rid of said loopholes they would first start bundling a completely free month of Game Pass with every Xbox so that practically every single Xbox sold from that point onward leads to a new Game Pass account data point.
Chukhopops
Member
Poll is missing a « none of the above » option.
Only thing I could see happen (and am actually surprised it did not already) is making a cheap PC out of a Series S box. Most mini computers are sold for 150-200 while being considerably weaker than the XSS. You could even downclock it and save on the cooling part to sell cheaper, or put a smaller SSD.
Only thing I could see happen (and am actually surprised it did not already) is making a cheap PC out of a Series S box. Most mini computers are sold for 150-200 while being considerably weaker than the XSS. You could even downclock it and save on the cooling part to sell cheaper, or put a smaller SSD.
PendekarRajawali
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Maybe you're only reading what you want to read and ignoring some of what's actually written?
You guys should really learn how to take different data points into grouped consideration. MS 1P games already sell on Steam, meaning MS is already giving Valve a 30% cut of their 1P software sales. The revenue they generate from 3P software sales on Xbox is not only much less than Sony does on PlayStation, but for Microsoft's business model as a corporation, is a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue they generate from Azure, Windows, and Office.
MS would stand to make up for that revenue by eschewing the traditional console business model. They already publish some games on Sony & Nintendo platforms, so what difference is it that they suddenly bring all of their 1P content to those platforms? Well, more revenue and more profit, actually. Getting curated versions of GamePass on other devices (something MS is absolutely set on wanting to do) means gaining more subscribers from the total gaming install base, and more importantly in places where gamers actually are (because let's be honest, very few people are interested in cloud streaming games through their smart TVs).
Classifying Xbox consoles as computer devices and shifting the business model towards that means even easier acceptance of semi-regular upgrade iterations, meaning more incentive for people on the All-Access program, meaning Xbox devices can now sell for profit on the hardware alone (with Nintendo-level profit margins or even better), meaning even more value-add to Xbox via full support for Windows programs and apps, meaning an even bigger reason to rid of the online paywall, meaning opening up Xbox devices for all the same variety of games and peripherals as gaming PCs (more choice), and many other benefits on top of even those.
That is revenue and, more importantly, profit in excess of what they currently generate from 3P sales cut on Xbox currently. A shift to that model also actually makes future acquisitions EASIER for them because one of the major concern of regulators, MS leveraging their corporate position in adjacent technology markets to heavily subsidize pricing of content, products & services in a traditional console business model in ways other platform holders cannot realistically compete with in a fair open competitive market, is more or less nullified.
Ironically I'm making a better argument for business model changes that would make MS's pursuit of future acquisitions easier than dolts on Twitter like Destin, Ryan and Jez who are basically making nigh crony capitalist threats to other platform holders & regulators to fearfully let Microsoft acquire ABK!
Well Xbox is currently doing what PlayStation and Nintendo are effectively doing right now, and to the perception of many, in an inferior capacity. You're also assuming that Valve will return to the Steam Machine concept, but operating off of what they are actually doing currently, Steam Deck is not necessarily the same thing.
In fact, MS would have more initiative to shift Xbox's business model towards something to drive Windows given Valve have been making significant strides to boost Linux compatibility of Windows applications and games. That's creating better & better arguments of value proposition for Linux and using SteamOS to access the vast majority of PC games over Windows, and that could impact Windows adoption by a sizable portion of customers going into the future.
Windows is magnitudes more valuable to Microsoft than Xbox, but utilizing Xbox to help secure Windows as the premier gaming OS on PC would be strong synergetic usage of both. And keep in mind, Microsoft's gaming roots are in the PC scene, just look at the history of stuff like Flight Simulator and even Minesweeper.
I don't necessarily care if Xbox stays or exits the hardware business, because not once did I write anything where Xbox leaves the hardware business!!! In that entire OP, I still envision Xbox devices being made, even a "10th-gen" Xbox device. However, that IMO comes with the change of Xbox now being treated more like a console form-factor PC gaming device, therefore having Windows compatibility, and changing its pricing model to be more reflective of their Surface line of devices (as an example, not in terms of the literal pricing i.e there would never be an Xbox device costing $2500 fully maxed out).
I think what's upsetting some of you is that this would mean shifting Xbox's business model and marketing strategy away from that associated with the traditional console approach. It would mean higher-priced hardware (but OTOH, MS having nice profit margins off that hardware). It would mean GamePass being available in some form on all consoles, PC and mobile storefronts. It would mean all 1P games getting native releases on PlayStation & Nintendo platforms Day 1 alongside Xbox, PC and depending on the specific game, even mobile devices.
It's that possibility that is making certain people upset, and I predicted as such. However, that was not my purpose in theorizing this. And I'm planning on doing something like this with PlayStation and there will probably be a few things there that will upset some hardcore PlayStation fans. It is what it is. I'm thinking about what moves seem the most logical for these companies in the gaming space, based off what it seems like they really want to prioritize and have already been prioritizing, so if the only takeaway someone has with this Xbox stuff is the erroneous assumption I "want" Xbox to exit the hardware business, then that's their problem, not mine.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
This is the shit i log in every day for. Amazing analysis. too bad 99% of people on the forum wont read it though
however 9 i sort of disagree with. Repurposing Xbox into something like a gaming centric PC brand would still carry the Xbox name, and it'd still be associated with a gaming console at the end of the day- it is VERY hard to change preconceptions. Selling Xbox at a for profit MSRP would result in an abject failure of a console and MS should know this since that's literally what they tried with the Xbox one. People would view it with consoles in mind, see the 799 MSRP, and nope the fuck out of there.
I also disagree that the Steam Machine is a good idea, and if anything i feel it's even worse of an idea now than it was in 2015
Computers these days are completely nonexistent in the consumer space, people only use cellphones or laptops for all their needs. Xbox turning into a gaming focused computer like this wouldn't do very well for one simple reason: it's this weird middle child inbetween casual and PC. People who are casual wouldn't buy an Xbox because it uses Windows which isn't really the best operating system for TV use, and it's an OS a lot of the casual market cannot really operate properly. And people who are PC gamers wouldn't want to buy it because of prebuilt bias and preconceptions regarding the Xbox brand. (it's just a console, PC is better, they have no games, etc)
those are my 2 cents, i hope to have more conversation in the future because this thread is really interesting : D
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
that would drive sales. TES and Halo too. Gamepass is the main draw of Xbox, these days. Neutering that and removing most 1p games makes the brand pretty much pointless to anyone already in the gaming sphere
I should have read the OP better, you meant they'll skip Day 1, not the service altogether. I'm a dumbass
i can definitely see them moving their first party content to Nintendo and Playstation, though
and i feel you should have really mentioned cloud more. IMO Xbox will still have their devices and games, but they will put a gigantic emphasis on Cloud. Xbox is not doing very well globally, in the US they sell well, everywhere else they're in hell. Now, if they could sell a cloud service that lets you play your games from your phone, that would do gangbusters... especially in very high tech, internet focused places like Japan where the majority of gaming is done on phone. If possible, the amount of revenue they gain from advertising Xcloud overseas could usurp the Switch.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
no, i want MORE words.thicc_girls_are_teh_best , I love you man, but you really gotta learn how to get your point across in 60 words or less.
ya'll can't get mad at us Gen Z for having low attention spans and then leave the moment someone hits you with 3 or more paragraphs
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
This is the shit i log in every day for. Amazing analysis. too bad 99% of people on the forum wont read it though
There are quite a few who read the bold header parts and try figuring I have a certain agenda based on only that. It is what it is
I think you're right about Xbox as a brand being strongly associated with console gaming, but given MS's Day 1 initiative for PC, Play Anywhere initiative and even having timed PC exclusives here and there (Gears Tactics, Flight Simulator, Age of Empires 4 etc.), it's not like MS haven't been conditioning their console base to accept PC as a part of the Xbox brand identity to where it's effectively at the same level as the Xbox console itself.
My idea of them raising the price of Xbox consoles is what I think they would ONLY do if they adjust the business model to where they are not on the razor & razor blades approach. In other words, positioning Xbox more as a powerful NUC-style device that's fully Windows-compatible, where the specs make it suitable for gaming in and of itself but it has additional value proposition through being a very capable NUC-style desktop PC. That's what allows them to increase the price, so that the hardware itself has good profit margins, and conversely they can scale back the amount of units produced if need be while still generating profit off direct hardware sales, or implementing them into All-Access for monthly pay installments.
I think some folks are thinking I suggested MS increase the price of Xbox devices while still adhering to the traditional console business model, and without transitioning it from a console branding/marketing to a computing device branding/marketing that is suitable for current gen-level gaming. Because that's how I actually intended for those two points in particular to tie together: they can't do the former without doing the latter. I might need to change the OP some to hopefully make that more evident, just in case the lack of explicitly tying a cause-effect to those points is what's leading some folks to think they're two separate things that MS would sensibly do with or without dependence to each other (as that wasn't the intent when bringing them up
).Actually, I think MS could make some easy adjustments here because we already see solutions on PC that address the concerns you bring up. There are frontends on PC, for example, that basically "take over" Windows after boot and present a very focused console-like OS & launcher. I think stuff like LaunchBox do this, for example, and there's another one I've seen featured on some ETA Prime retro PC vids that does similar, where you can set up graphics for elements in the frontend environment, etc.
MS can simply build a frontend on top of Windows for this type of Windows Xbox device that emulates navigating a console OS, or navigating an Apple TV environment, etc. In fact, they already kind of do this! The Xbox OS that Series S & X use is a fork based on Windows (as the consoles are fully DX12U-compliant, meaning they have to be using some version of Windows customized for them) and the consoles user hypervisor layers for games and media content. They started this with the XBO, but it was very clunky and had to be fixed up over time; the Series consoles do this significantly better.
So what's being suggested here is something Microsoft already do to a large extent. The only difference is that I'm suggesting Microsoft also enable full regular Windows on those same Xbox devices (or future Xbox devices). However, this would mean they have to shift away from the traditional console business model: allowing users to switch to an expanded, full "regular" Windows environment means they can run all the software on Xbox that they can on Windows, and buy from other game storefronts. To offset that, Microsoft positions the MSRP of the devices to be higher. They can even just allow an upgrade path for people buying those Xbox devices to unlock full Windows functionality, but requiring an upgrade fee to do so (which is what they already used to do with Windows and kind of still do depending on which version you're on and what you're upgrading to).
I know that such also means they potentially lose out on 3P software revenue sales, but let's also be honest here: revenue from 3P game software sales means virtually nothing for Microsoft. Not because they necessarily put GamePass ahead of those, but because the maybe $10 billion in annual revenue that 3P games software gives MS is nothing compared to the $160 billion or so annual revenue that their other divisions bring in (and that doesn't even get into profits). IMHO, Microsoft would be able to generate pretty good revenue by shifting away from the traditional console business model, having their games on as many platforms as possible Day 1, having curated versions of their services on other ecosystems, and get similar or higher profit margins than they currently do from gaming on the model they operate on right now.
But that's just an opinion.
I should have read the OP better, you meant they'll skip Day 1, not the service altogether. I'm a dumbass
i can definitely see them moving their first party content to Nintendo and Playstation, though
and i feel you should have really mentioned cloud more. IMO Xbox will still have their devices and games, but they will put a gigantic emphasis on Cloud. Xbox is not doing very well globally, in the US they sell well, everywhere else they're in hell. Now, if they could sell a cloud service that lets you play your games from your phone, that would do gangbusters... especially in very high tech, internet focused places like Japan where the majority of gaming is done on phone. If possible, the amount of revenue they gain from advertising Xcloud overseas could usurp the Switch.
True, I didn't focus too much on cloud. But I'm also not 100% sold cloud is ever going to appeal to a large majority of gamers. Even on mobile, I don't necessarily see it being a particularly massive market for gaming.
However, I'm a lot more interested in what cloud does for the backend, for hosting platforms of game content, servers, and enabling interconnected console development around the globe while also powering AI-driven data & content generation models like APT-1 (and we've gotten glimpses of this from Haven/Mark Cerny and Ninja Theory). That's where I think cloud actually has big presence in the gaming industry, and that's probably where a lot of the growth is going to be.
Because even with stuff like 5G, it's heavily dependent on how close to the towers you are, and if you're indoors, making sure there aren't too many walls between you and the source of the signal, otherwise the 5G benefits drop massively and now you've gotta worry so much more about latency, lag and all that.
I like that you mentioned advertising opportunities through cloud though. We've seen some rather...interesting...patents for ads in subscription services, for example, but that's probably only going to be a very limited means of generating customer revenue through cloud technologies. OTOH, big games that implement in-game adverts and advertising assets that feel like naturally belong in the game world, which can be interacted with, generate some verifiable traffic between the player and the company advertising that product, in a way that fits the nature of the game while also allowing for flexible updates of that content thanks to cloud integration? That could be a huge opportunity.
It'll be interesting to see if GTA 6, for example, does this. As that would be the perfect opportunity to try implementing it, present a huge customer base for advertisers, and be more or less readily accepted because it's GTA.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I want to say something real quick to the people who think me bringing up MS switching away from the traditional console business model would be a horrible idea, and I'm going to actually use acquisitions to make this point.
Microsoft announced their intent to purchase Zenimax in September 2020. That acquisition was cleared in March 2021, six months later. OTOH, Take-Two announced their intent to purchase Zygna, for a LARGER purchasing price than Microsoft did Zenimax, in January of this year. That acquisition was confirmed and cleared in May. So, four months, versus the six months it took Microsoft to buy Zenimax, despite the higher purchasing price of Zygna compared to Zenimax (I know the purchasing price isn't the only factor that matters, but for this comparison I'm sticking with that).
Now look at the insane drag time it's taking Microsoft to get the ABK deal approved. They from the onset gave an eighteen-month window, and there's always a chance that could extend. So I have to ask, what is the differentiating factor between Take-Two and Microsoft here? The most obvious is that Take-Two is not a platform holder (specifically console hardware platform holder) who has a games console operating on the traditional console business model. Meaning, there is no perceived risk to outside entities that they can unfairly leverage their content assets in a way to boost their product's market share against competitors in means competitors cannot realistically compete with in an otherwise fair & open market, because for a company like Take-Tow, the content IS the product.
If Microsoft were not selling or operating Xbox in a way that adhered to the traditional console business model (heavy hardware subsidization, locking any 1P content to their own devices either timed or fully exclusive, locking their services to only devices they manufacture, having the potential to leverage acquired content as bargaining chips against rival platform holders to accept potentially unfair terms for hosting their services on their platforms else they lose access to that content, etc.)...then I genuinely think this acquisition process for ABK would be a lot more uncontested and smoother sailing for them.
Not completely uncontested, mind you. Companies like Google would still provide some resistance, perhaps more so in fact. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that Microsoft would still obviously be a software/services platform holder via the GamePass service and xCloud (which is a big part of the regulatory discussions as well). But I think Sony in particular would not be contesting Microsoft on the grounds of the acquisition nearly as much as they currently are or at all, because the tactics at Microsoft's disposal to lock Sony out via MS adhering to the traditional console business model, would simply not be in play, because Microsoft would not be operating the brand by that model whatsoever.
And as if it can't be stated clearly enough, that doesn't mean Microsoft stops making Xbox systems. It's just that those Xbox systems are no longer on the console business model, meaning they aren't marketed or subsidized as consoles, and they aren't propped up by software exclusives or exclusive services the way consoles are, either. It means Microsoft working with Sony and other platform holders as a 3P publisher, and supporting those platforms with their content, and even getting some form of GamePass on those platforms as well. THAT'S what this all means, and if that were Microsoft's model from the get-go this generation, I think this ABK acquisition would be going along a lot easier for them TBH.
Microsoft announced their intent to purchase Zenimax in September 2020. That acquisition was cleared in March 2021, six months later. OTOH, Take-Two announced their intent to purchase Zygna, for a LARGER purchasing price than Microsoft did Zenimax, in January of this year. That acquisition was confirmed and cleared in May. So, four months, versus the six months it took Microsoft to buy Zenimax, despite the higher purchasing price of Zygna compared to Zenimax (I know the purchasing price isn't the only factor that matters, but for this comparison I'm sticking with that).
Now look at the insane drag time it's taking Microsoft to get the ABK deal approved. They from the onset gave an eighteen-month window, and there's always a chance that could extend. So I have to ask, what is the differentiating factor between Take-Two and Microsoft here? The most obvious is that Take-Two is not a platform holder (specifically console hardware platform holder) who has a games console operating on the traditional console business model. Meaning, there is no perceived risk to outside entities that they can unfairly leverage their content assets in a way to boost their product's market share against competitors in means competitors cannot realistically compete with in an otherwise fair & open market, because for a company like Take-Tow, the content IS the product.
If Microsoft were not selling or operating Xbox in a way that adhered to the traditional console business model (heavy hardware subsidization, locking any 1P content to their own devices either timed or fully exclusive, locking their services to only devices they manufacture, having the potential to leverage acquired content as bargaining chips against rival platform holders to accept potentially unfair terms for hosting their services on their platforms else they lose access to that content, etc.)...then I genuinely think this acquisition process for ABK would be a lot more uncontested and smoother sailing for them.
Not completely uncontested, mind you. Companies like Google would still provide some resistance, perhaps more so in fact. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that Microsoft would still obviously be a software/services platform holder via the GamePass service and xCloud (which is a big part of the regulatory discussions as well). But I think Sony in particular would not be contesting Microsoft on the grounds of the acquisition nearly as much as they currently are or at all, because the tactics at Microsoft's disposal to lock Sony out via MS adhering to the traditional console business model, would simply not be in play, because Microsoft would not be operating the brand by that model whatsoever.
And as if it can't be stated clearly enough, that doesn't mean Microsoft stops making Xbox systems. It's just that those Xbox systems are no longer on the console business model, meaning they aren't marketed or subsidized as consoles, and they aren't propped up by software exclusives or exclusive services the way consoles are, either. It means Microsoft working with Sony and other platform holders as a 3P publisher, and supporting those platforms with their content, and even getting some form of GamePass on those platforms as well. THAT'S what this all means, and if that were Microsoft's model from the get-go this generation, I think this ABK acquisition would be going along a lot easier for them TBH.
Iced Arcade
Member
I do agree thicc girls are the best.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Correct
Or you're just assuming imagination.
The funny part about this post is your bias and conspiracy mindset is so strong you don't realize this sentence contains the answer. Yes it is only the 2nd year, which means consoles are still selling, and most of that 2 years Xbox was supply constrained. So yes, until more consoles are out to be sold, the massive groth from before which was way above average, funny how you skip that, being reduced to a still high 28% is still good. They had almost 19 million subs in less than 2 years. They weren't even at 10 million until sometime spring 2020 iirc, do from then to Dec 31st 2021, they had 15 million new subs before the Jan 2022 25 mill announcement. Most of that would be led by the S because of the supply issues with the X, which clearly Phil was thinking wouldn't last as long based on his statement he expected the S to be ahead later across the gen and not early. That's great growth despite one leg being tied back.
No you haven't, you've only taken some news at best, because often you don't do that, and misread or twist the words, and come up with weird conclusions and people always point out the contradictions, or the evidence contradicting your theories, and every two times a person addresses you you vanish.
You have no proof for this, prove otherwise has been the only thing that's been posted in this entire forum and not just by me either. If they wanted to get the "mainstream price point" gamers in the numbers you keep trying to set the Series S sales (which you don't know) to, which is many many millions, it would have been priced for one at $199 not $299 as the former is actually the traditional mass market price point (which it was for half the month so far), and they would have pushed it as such but they didn't. From not only Phils mouth but the people who MADE the damn thing,
The S was there to get people who didn't want to pay full price, didn't want the power and the HDR 4K, people with 720/1080p TV's, who want to play sports, COD, fortnite, Minecraft whatever, for a cheap price but still have access to next gen. Not the numerous made up stories you keep pulling that contradict Microsofts own words, including your fabled "mission statement".
Phil himself even expected the X to sell more and the S to end up selling the most gradually across until the end of the gen. He clearly wasn't thinking the supply problems would end up being as bad as it did.
Just going to leave this here form when you vanished last time, https://www.neogaf.com/threads/xbox-partners-with-orange-belgium-provising-subs-with-an-ultra-gaming-pack-series-s-all-access-first-month-free-w-5g-connection-for-€24-99-month.1645205/post-266928895
Last edited:
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Nah, I won't.
But I will when I get hit with 9,999.
I ain't on NeoGaf to read folk's 600-page memoirs.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Last I checked, XBO still existed and GamePass has been around since 2017. MS had no current-gen only 1P games from 2020 to this year, and hardly any 1P releases, so if people who wanted to play games via GamePass needed a system, they didn't have to rely on simply Series availability to do that. Yes there's been evidence showing that Sony 1P games were often constrained in sales due to lack of PS5 availability because when PS5s were more plentiful cross-gen game sales increased, and in THEORY we can assume this could be something similar with 3P cross-gen multiplats, but it doesn't work for GamePass because most 3P multiplats never went into GamePass Day 1 or even within 3-6 months post-release, so that phenomenon would not have been occurring.
Also, you're one to talk about someone having bias or a conspiracy (there's that word again
) mindset, but you're failing to contribute that most of GamePass's growth in 2020 and 2021 coincided with COVID lockdowns, because that's when ALL entertainment sub services saw big growth. During the COVID lockdowns. Since those lockdowns have ended in most parts of the world, we've seen heavy churn on many services and that evidently also includes GamePass. For multiple quarters MS have ignored giving sub count milestone updates, and have missed projected growth numbers. Supply for Series hasn't been bad this year, particular for the S (the GamePass machine), yet they've missed growth targets multiple quarters at the end of FY 2021 and into FY 2022. So what happened?Well, whatever happened, that should tell you Series availability is not in fact the only factor driving sub growth or leading to sub churn. GamePass growth slowing on console isn't because of lack of availability, it's due to lack of perceived content value to many who maybe would have otherwise signed up or kept their subs running. The state of unique software releases (especially 1P-wise) into the service this year outside of indies and one genuinely good AA game in the form of Plague Tale: Requiem, should tell you as such. But sure, GP growth on console is slowing down only because of lack of systems
.Who's vanishing? Me? Because I'm still here.
You're being so dense it hurts. $299 IS a mainstream price for price-conscious mainstream and casual gamers in the customer pool TODAY, you're stuck in 2009, even 1999, with that mentality. Consoles like the PS4 and XBO never got their MSRP reduced to $199 officially because the economics are not there. Microsoft themselves projected the economics would not be there going forward due to increasing costs for smaller nodes and component pricing (with more industries outside of games consoles needing stuff from a finite pool of components), hence why they designed the Series X and S. They do not see either console reaching a point where they can hit very low pricing MSRP and maintain only minimum losses per system. Go back and read through the Xbox Hot Chips 2020 slide presentations.
The "traditional" mass market price point you're alluding to is dead, and has been dead for at least a generation, outside of maybe Nintendo's portables but those use antiquated technology which is relatively cheap to manufacture, especially in the volumes Nintendo systems sell at. And even supposing your outdated idea on the mass market price were true, guess what!? Series S is ALREADY selling at that price through several retailers today via rebates and gift cards on top of the pricing discount promotions! So if that's the only thing you have (outside of PR talk from Phil and an Xbox engineer you claim said otherwise) to refute the claim that Series S was designed for bringing in the mainstream & casual mass market from the generational jump instead of having them wait until halfway through a gen for price cuts, then you're out of luck.
You literally just described a lot of the very same mainstream & casual gaming customers out there
. That is the mainstream & casual gamer profile almost to a 't. They fit all of those boxes you just listed, and you're only strengthening my point. But I think you're just upset that I then go on to say that in relation to what Series S should be doing sales-wise, it has been traditionally performing under that in sell-through within the market, hence some of the aggressive pricing deals we've been seeing since the summer.I always said that was circumstantial proof on my part, it's not like you'll ever get someone at the Xbox division or Microsoft to admit to it openly or even in private, perhaps. But that circumstantial proof helps my position on this a lot more than you want to admit.
I probably got swept up into other stuff when you replied at that time, so missed the chance to respond. Oh well, it happens sometimes.
But to Phil's statement...okay, so you just repeat what he said. So what? Maybe he said that because he expected more X supply than S starting out, but they weren't the only ones screwed over by the chip shortages. The chip shortages would have made them prioritize Series X units AHEAD of Series S then, if total supply was being cut down, that's the logical assumption I would make looking at from the outside.
However to suppose that they decided to prioritize the S, suggests they wanted to maximize GamePass sub counts because they can produce two S units for every X, and only reinforces the notion that Series S is the GamePass machine. Or, it became the GamePass machine at that point and going forward. What's funny is that the chip shortages have seemingly began to come to an end, or ease back, yet Microsoft have still forecasted chip shortages for themselves into early 2023 (suggesting they may for whatever reason by "stuck" on 7nm still and have not done internal revisions to shift to 6nm process, or a mixed 7nm/6nm process to boost supply, or have chosen to not put in orders for additional units for any number of reasons) and at this time, when they could have regularly been producing more Series Xs, they've instead been producing more Series S units.
Yes yes, Series X may have led Xbox sales for Black Friday but that only tells of supply put out for the holiday event, not what the regular production rate of X units over the year actually are. We do know the S has been outselling the S for a few quarters now, however, as the supply is much greater. The advertising is centered around the S now, as well. That's a big ass shift to zeroing in on the S when theoretically they could be pushing the X ahead of the S, and it's just two years into the generation.
So hey maybe Phil figured this would be a three or four-year generation for them eh?
Last edited:
So MS will neuter(kill) their Xbox brand(make them windows/steam boxs) and then neuter(kill) gamepass (stop day 1stP) so Sony And Ninty will allow new gimped Gamepass on their platforms?
Sony and Ninty will NEVER ever ever ever ever allow Gamepass in ANY form on their platforms.
Now if Gamepass doesnt meet expectations and they move away from it, they may exit the tradional Xbox console space. That actually could happen, but wont be by 2025. 2024 -2026 will have so many 1st Party bangers. Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, ES6, Hellblade 2, Gears UE5, etc etc. Then they find out if their current Gamepass course is working.
Sony and Ninty will NEVER ever ever ever ever allow Gamepass in ANY form on their platforms.
Now if Gamepass doesnt meet expectations and they move away from it, they may exit the tradional Xbox console space. That actually could happen, but wont be by 2025. 2024 -2026 will have so many 1st Party bangers. Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, ES6, Hellblade 2, Gears UE5, etc etc. Then they find out if their current Gamepass course is working.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Sony already allows Ubisoft+ on PlayStation systems, the difference between Ubisoft+ and GamePass being that Ubisoft is not a console hardware platform holder, so they don't pose a direct threat to Sony's core games operation business. Since there is no conflict there, and because Ubisoft+ only pertains to Ubisoft's own catalogue of games, they work with them to provide that service to PS customers on PS consoles.
Shifting Xbox away from the traditional console business model is not neutering or killing the brand; it's actually shifting the brand into what its original purpose was the entire time. Direct X-box, remember that? They only made the Xbox because they feared Sony were going to make PC gaming obsolete, and make PCs in general dead. That never happened, and for all the talk speculators did a decade ago, mobile has not killed off PC gaming or console gaming, either.
You could even argue that Microsoft focusing on Sony in what would eventually amount to a fruitless battle (in comparison to the original intent behind making the Xbox), they neglected to secure the PC gaming market, and that allowed Valve to sweep in and pretty much own PC gaming as it is today. Yeah, those games and Steam may still need Windows (although even that is now starting to change thanks to Steam OS and Valve's continued work to improve Linux compatibility of games), but people do not associate Microsoft with PC gaming the way they may have in the late '80s and throughout the '90s, when there was no storefront and the OS itself (MS-DOS, Windows '95 etc.) were the direct means of running the games (and when you purchased the games from retailers).
Since it's clear Microsoft want to pursue growth in gaming through increasing revenue, and the main means they seem to have determined that as doable is through studio acquisitions and ensuring forms of multiplatform support post-acquisition, then them anchoring Xbox to the traditional console business model is effectively a foil impeding that growth. MS as a company do not actually NEED the glut of 3P sales revenue on Xbox; Sony and especially Nintendo, however, do. If Microsoft's statements that they need these games, like COD, to persist on Sony & Nintendo platforms via direct sales to continue in order to justify the costs of the acquisitions, then why continue to provide a console platform operating on a business model that directly threatens the market stability and position of the consoles in which you claim you need to provide this content to? That's a paradox of their own creation.
MS shifting from the traditional console business model, actually opens up many things to them which seem evident in where they want to grow in this industry. It allows them to drop pretenses and provide as much of their owned content Day 1 on as many platforms as possible in a matter of native builds which allows them to saturate the primary stream of gaming software revenue: direct sales (physical & digital). It allows them to offer truly hardware-agnostic models of GamePass to other services and can leverage the models of EA's service and Ubisoft+ as examples to enable GamePass on Sony and Nintendo devices. It allows them to stop bleeding cash on subsidizing Xbox hardware and still keep a design cadence and model that can appeal to console and PC gamers who would like something comparable to a console but with the degree of freedom and options of a Windows product. Which, in turn, allows them to set a healthy MSRP that can make up for any reduced scale of unit production, still ensure there are more units produced than say compared to their Surface devices, and fall closer in line with the advertising scale they essentially have been doing for Xbox the past year or so now in a way that actually makes sense.
You still get your Xbox. You still get your GamePass. You still get your games. But now, Microsoft significantly improves the profit margins on hardware so they aren't bleeding so much in subsidizing them. They remove two massive obstacles to contesting future acquisitions, in the form of Sony and Nintendo, since they are no longer directly competing with them on the traditional console business model. They have the freedom to maximize direct sales revenue AND services revenue across Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo and PC devices and, if they can work out terms between Apple, Amazon and Google when it comes to services & cloud, their devices as well (services only in those cases except for smaller games that can be ported to run on the typical Apple or Google phone, or typical Amazon Kindle tablet for example, like Pentiment). Which, I shouldn't even need to repeat this, means they have an easier time getting approval from regulators for future acquisitions so should they want to pursue them.
That's the big picture view here, this is about so much more than console wars (in fact, it's not even about that at all).
We still don't know where those games will land in quality. Any one of them could be duds or just not resonate with the masses in spite of their quality. I think the tepid growth in GamePass growth after a holiday season that had Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5 might have made Microsoft a bit shaken on future prognosis of the service's weight into the division's revenue stream, so they're going to monitor what those games you listed do to draw in additional subs, and increase console sales.
Although again, if MS's main areas of growth are in areas that don't deal directly with GamePass or Xbox in the customer-facing sense, it won't matter how good or bad those brands perform in generating revenue. They may still want to consider some changes to the business model just to better facilitate growth in other areas.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Cross posting on Icon, cool. I’ll read it on the forum where Microsoft is considered a “threat to society”
Anyway, gonna vote no on most of that nonsense.
Anyway, gonna vote no on most of that nonsense.