Support NeoGAF

[ADiTAR]

The reality is the next Xbox will probably only sell 10-25 million units because the XBS is probably going to fall to 35 million units. There is zero chance that a device in decline at roughly 25 million is going to double its user base. It's already passed its peak. The only question now is how fast do sales shrivel up.

While I think a strategy of opening up their software library is a good one, I would never predict a failed product. Wii U was a total failure after Wii, and Switch made a huge comeback. Xbox can do that too with amazing content and innovation, I think what we know is that MS is unable to do both of those things at the moment and it doesn't seem like they will. But one can hope because it benefits us all.

 

[reinking]

It's not fearmongering at all, things would be different, and not likely in a good way. Love or hate MS, but they have been the one pressuring sony in the home console market for the last 20 years. Without them going forward sony will innovate less and increase pricing whenever possible.

I agree that ms needs consoles still so this is an unlikely move, it just blows my mind that people seem to think that a world with no ms know the console space somehow makes things magically better for gamers overall when it's likely the opposite.

It doesn't make it magically better but you are making it magically worse. Even if someone like Apple does not step in, Nintendo and Sony were innovative before the Xbox. I hope I am wrong, but prices are most likely going to go up regardless of what MS does because the market is pushing it in that direction. Sony and Nintendo are aware that there is a ceiling to console prices before people move to phones or PC. I am no more afraid of pricing with MS in or out of the console market. I would say the same if it was Sony in Microsoft's position. There is a lot more competition outside of the console market to keep them in check.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

You wouldn't even have ps plus games included if it wasn't for gamepass. Basic online gaming on PlayStation would be $99 a year at least.
And your games would be $90.

 

[Topher]

Physical copies never mattered on PC so there was not even any fight.

Physical copies did actually matter on PC at one time. It has been a while though.

 

[Topher]

You wouldn't even have ps plus games included if it wasn't for gamepass. Basic online gaming on PlayStation would be $99 a year at least.
And your games would be $90.

PS+ started out as a games subscription service long before it incorporated online gaming.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

While I think a strategy of opening up their software library is a good one, I would never predict a failed product. Wii U was a total failure after Wii, and Switch made a huge comeback. Xbox can do that too with amazing content and innovation, I think what we know is that MS is unable to do both of those things at the moment and it doesn't seem like they will. But one can hope because it benefits us all.

I think you can't compare the decades of success nintendo has had and their foundation of ip and development to microsoft, who in 20 years have never created their own industry IP. They bought halo after it was already in development. Epic made gears of war and that's not even that big of an ip. They didn't make minecraft either.

People pretend like Microsoft is going to start doing something now that they've never done. It's not going to happen, especially not with their brand on the outs.

There's hope and then there is hopium.

 

[Solidus_T]

You wouldn't even have ps plus games included if it wasn't for gamepass. Basic online gaming on PlayStation would be $99 a year at least.
And your games would be $90.

I played Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen on PS3 with PS+ in 2013, before Game Pass was a thing.

 

[dotnotbot]

So MS gonna release Hi-Fi Rush and Pentiment on other platforms, games masses don't care about, and then brag about being proconsummer and multiplatform publisher so that they should be allowed to acquire another big publisher with games that masses actually do care about. Did I guess their strategy for upcoming few years?

 

[THE DUCK]

It doesn't make it magically better but you are making it magically worse. Even if someone like Apple does not step in, Nintendo and Sony were innovative before the Xbox. I hope I am wrong, but prices are most likely going to go up regardless of what MS does because the market is pushing it in that direction. Sony and Nintendo are aware that there is a ceiling to console prices before people move to phones or PC. I am no more afraid of pricing with MS in or out of the console market. I would say the same if it was Sony in Microsoft's position. There is a lot more competition outside of the console market to keep them in check.

While it's entirely possible another company steps in, it's also very possible that none do considering the huge capital investment and potential losses. The very reason Apple and Google haven't stepped in still, there has literally been zero stopping either of them buying up software companies and launching thier own consoles over the past 10-15 if they wanted to. If we take your point that's it's not black and white in what I am arguing you also have to concede that we really don't know what would happen if they left.

While it's true the market will only suffer a max price, when you have less direct completion in a very specific field, prices will go up. And for sure without gamepass there would be no game sub service on PlayStation, just pay to play online like before.

 

[THE DUCK]

I played Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen on PS3 with PS+ in 2013, before Game Pass was a thing.

Not the same as a proper game sub service with hundreds of instantly accessable games regardless of when you started your sub, like gamepass, just a couple of free games every month. Apples to oranges.

 

[Agent X]

Not the same as a proper game sub service with hundreds of instantly accessable games regardless of when you started your sub, like gamepass, just a couple of free games every month. Apples to oranges.

Do you remember PlayStation Now?

 

[THE DUCK]

PS+ started out as a games subscription service long before it incorporated online gaming.

Right, and you had to stay subbed to play the games and had to be subbed to redeem the games for each month. Where as gamepass (and ps premium now) includes hundreds of games from the first day of of subscribing and even day and date aaa games (gamepass), much different.

 

[laynelane]

Consumers?
MS (or any other company) doesn't care about consumers.

This is about the amount of time it will take for Zenimax and ATK to pay back the 80bn if they don't start releasing games on every possible platform.

After the drop in sales and Xbox hardware reaching near global irrelevance I guess Spencer got a spanking and was ordered to start doing multiplatform games.

That's my take too. If their acquisition strategy had paid off and drawn more customers to their platform, we wouldn't even be discussing this topic. The funny part is some of the biggest cheerleaders for those acquisitions (eg. Jez, Timdog, etc) are now so shocked and angry that Xbox first-party could potentially release on other platforms. MS spent a lot of money on those acquisitions and they're going to want a return on that. If that won't happen with their current user base, then it's rational to expand to others. Extreme fans on Twitter don't seem to realize that MS was never going to use the "war chest" to infinitely fund Xbox and this is just an example of that.

 

[THE DUCK]

Do you remember PlayStation Now?

You mean the weak attempt at trying to compete with gamepass that basically failed? Yes I do.

 

[poppabk]

Then why did physical games disappear?
With multiple options they should have survived right? PC is more reliant than ever on a single service since most PC gamers use Steam as their primary gaming platform.

Because no-one cared about physical games on PC, no one wanted them. You couldn't sell them, you couldn't rent them, you couldn't play them from the disc, you couldnt borrow them from a friend. They were just a pointless piece of plastic.
PC isn't reliant on Steam, its just the best service at the moment. They have some decent inertia from community, ease of use and genuine goodwill, but they start sucking people will switch where they buy new games.

 

[ulantan]

You mean the weak attempt at trying to compete with gamepass that basically failed? Yes I do.

Playstation now released in 2014

 

[Topher]

Right, and you had to stay subbed to play the games and had to be subbed to redeem the games for each month. Where as gamepass (and ps premium now) includes hundreds of games from the first day of of subscribing and even day and date aaa games (gamepass), much different.

Yes, but I wasn't suggesting it was the same as Game Pass. Just that there were, in fact, games included with PS+ prior to GP.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Not the same as a proper game sub service with hundreds of instantly accessable games regardless of when you started your sub, like gamepass, just a couple of free games every month. Apples to oranges.

Huh?

 

[onQ123]

By the way this is a trap!

They want to disrupt the industry crash it & come out the ashes as the only survivors

 

[graywolf323]

Do you remember PlayStation Now?

you have to understand that for some people even if Sony did it first, they still were just copying Microsoft

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Never mind, it's too complicated guess.

It might be too complicated for you to explain, or perhaps you don't understand what you are even talking about

 

[Topher]

Because no-one cared about physical games on PC, no one wanted them. You couldn't sell them, you couldn't rent them, you couldn't play them from the disc, you couldnt borrow them from a friend. They were just a pointless piece of plastic.
PC isn't reliant on Steam, its just the best service at the moment. They have some decent inertia from community, ease of use and genuine goodwill, but they start sucking people will switch where they buy new games.

Physical PC games were sold for many many years. The problem was they were easily copied. That doesn't mean no one wanted them. Publishers just stopped offering games on PC due to all the piracy. Steam made PC gaming viable again.

 

[ergem]

at last, ms game studios are going 3rd party

 

[64gigabyteram]

While I agree that we'll eventually go to an all streaming future, I personally think PC will get there long before consoles will stop existing.

PC gamers were the first to accept digital only, and they will be the first to accept streaming only. The handful of people who care about graphics are just that, a handful. The rest of the PC crowd will happily play their Roblox, MMO's, CounterStrike and Fortnite as a stream.

PC is a more "hardcore" gaming platform despite digital only. You customize your own computer and play your own games with the OS you choose (Windows is not the only option when it comes to PC OSes btw)and customize with your own apps. Customization is a huge part of PC and streaming is pretty antithetical to that.

I think it's more likely that consoles will fall to streaming ad they're more casual and simple for gamers to get into. But neither of us can really predict the future, so we'll just have to wait & see. Maybe both will fall at the same time

 

[laynelane]

It doesn't make it magically better but you are making it magically worse. Even if someone like Apple does not step in, Nintendo and Sony were innovative before the Xbox. I hope I am wrong, but prices are most likely going to go up regardless of what MS does because the market is pushing it in that direction. Sony and Nintendo are aware that there is a ceiling to console prices before people move to phones or PC. I am no more afraid of pricing with MS in or out of the console market. I would say the same if it was Sony in Microsoft's position. There is a lot more competition outside of the console market to keep them in check.

I think Sony learned a lesson with the PS3, as well. Kind of hard not when the console initially didn't sell well and their own customers turned on them because of that beginning price point.

 

[demigod]

Any of you excited about the idea of ms leaving the console space need to give your head a shake. Welcome to a world of $120 controllers, $120 games, and more expensive console hardware from Sony. A world where they spend less on software development.
Competition is good, not bad. Hopefully this is nothing more than secondary titles.

Yet y'all would rather spend $60 on the same shit 10 year controllers from ms that didn't innovate, hilarious.

 

[64gigabyteram]

They will absolutely be the first to accept a streaming only future, because 'at least we don't have to pay for online' or something like that.

Literally one of the biggest parts of PC gaming culture is obsessing over your rig and your computer... You know, the hardware that you own.

And it's known that PC gamers are complete and utter graphics whores. We can notice low bitrate video streaming and terrible input latency. 2 things that don't meld well with twitch based fast paced shooters people commonly play on PC like overwatch, TF2 and CSGO.

Yet y'all would rather spend $60 on the same shit 10 year controllers from ms that didn't innovate, hilarious.

MS's controllers are peak when it comes to ergonomics and feel. I think that's going to be changing soon as they seem to try and ruin them with the new Xbox controllers, but until then the Series X controllers are unmatched. Features are important yes but not as important as having the controller melt into your hands perfectly.

 

[nick776]

Someone posted a scenario a while back that really intrigued me, the scenario was such that Microsoft publishes all its first party titles on PS5 and Switch 2. However, it still makes an Xbox Console, but one that is really expensive. The Xbox would be $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 and would, hands-down, be the best place to play Xbox games. I would actually be just fine with a scenario like this, especially if they did it in such a way that they released a new super-expensive console annually or every other year. Some people actually want really high-end consoles and are willing to buy them even annually. I think Microsoft could find their "niche" by doing things in such a way and it would still enable them to have significant profit margins and recoup development costs. Although first party titles would release on PS5 and Switch 2, the only place GamePass would remain would be Xbox hardware and PC. Again, someone else posted this so I am basically regurgitating what they said. I thought it was a good idea though.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I think some poeple need to accept that we have maybe 2 more hardware generations after this one, and thats talking like 20 years into the future. I'll be very surprised if one, or both, Xbox and Playstation are not streaming only by then.
Nintendo live in their own dream world so who knows what they will do.

You just have to remember how bad internet was 20 years ago to how it is today, then think what the internet will be like in 20 years from now.

Imo both Xbox and Playstation will be streaming subsciption services that you play on pretty much any of your devices. So slowly bring exclusive games to new players over the coming years, well that could certainly give you a head start when everything goes streaming only.

Just my personnal take of course. Its part of the reson why i'm PC only as no one owns PC and PC gamers simply wont accept a streaming only future when hardware is such an important part of gaming to them. And obviosly the gpu and cpu makers wont be pushing for a streaming only future on PC when hardware is their main business.

I dunno... If this was the plan, why would they spend so much on getting COD to just sell the streaming to ubisoft?

 

[poppabk]

Physical PC games were sold for many many years. The problem was they were easily copied. That doesn't mean no one wanted them. Publishers just stopped offering games on PC due to all the piracy. Steam made PC gaming viable again.

That's kind of revisionist history. Physical games didn't stop getting sold and then Steam rose to fill the gap. As steam and other digital distribution (D2D, GFWL etc)became viable, physical games became less viable and eventually just disappeared. I don't remember anyone just copying discs - piracy remained a constant throughout the entire era but physical copies had nothing to do with it. I also don't remember anyone giving a shit about physical games disappearing, like I said at best they saved a download, that was it.

 

[DevilHunterX0]

It's an unwritten rule: 3rd place = 3rd party

 

[njean777]

Idk why MS doesn't just become a publisher. Let Sony do all the hardware and MS just publish games for both pc and PS. Would save them a lot of money, and maybe partner with Sony with game pass instead of the version Sony offers right now.

 

[Dane]

Where are you getting 45-50 million for XBS? You're assuming that with a massive 25% reduction in userbase that the floor for the XBS is 45 million. Let me tell you... it's lower.

And I wouldn't compare the N64 and the XBS. We're talking about two completely different time periods. Gaming is much larger now and the N64 wasn't seen as that much of a success, but relative to the market and during the first couple years, it was significantly more successful than the XBS.

I'm going to throw this out there, with GamePass shuttering a lot of B2P sales, the royalties on XBS probably aren't that great and probably not worth the opportunity costs of focusing solely on software publishing and hardware agnostic platform. They won't get gamepass on those systems, but they can get their software on it and they can stop spending a multitude of dollars on failed exclusivity deals which we've already seen them shy away from.

The reality is the next Xbox will probably only sell 10-25 million units because the XBS is probably going to fall to 35 million units. There is zero chance that a device in decline at roughly 25 million is going to double its user base. It's already passed its peak. The only question now is how fast do sales shrivel up.

You forgot that Microsoft sell thousands of third party games, their DLCs (which some of their first party are not included on GP) and even stuff like movies. The royalties give them much more money per year than they do with their exclusives

 

[ADiTAR]

I think you can't compare the decades of success nintendo has had and their foundation of ip and development to microsoft, who in 20 years have never created their own industry IP. They bought halo after it was already in development. Epic made gears of war and that's not even that big of an ip. They didn't make minecraft either.

People pretend like Microsoft is going to start doing something now that they've never done. It's not going to happen, especially not with their brand on the outs.

There's hope and then there is hopium.

I'm with you, I don't think they are capable of producing amazing innovative games or hardware. I hope for the industry they can, but looking of the failing upwards person at the top I doubt it.

But, in a Dr Strange 1 in a 2 million scenario where they do something amazing with Halo like Nintendo did with Zelda... they might be able to.

 

[geary]

The clientele for gaming in 2028 and 2036 (next 2 gen) will be the ADHD zoomers of today.Streaming will be flourishing by then.

 

[ByWatterson]

I swear to Christ if I ever get Age II on PS5 with full trophy support I'm going to throw a goddamn parade.

 

[FeralEcho]

I really do think Microsoft is going to redefine what it means to be a platform holder moving forward.

They aren't abandoning their platform/hardware but they also aren't going to be afraid to publish games on rival platforms.

They are about to redefine how to unsell your platform to your consumer cuz no one is gonna buy the next Xbox if all the shit that you can only find on it will be available elsewhere.

 

[Varteras]

not as important as having the controller melt into your hands perfectly.

The way I melt in yours?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

ok, before going to mimir Iet's use our mushroom tip head.

....Competition. Competition is good. right?

How do you define competition?

a) Is having multiple choices for services and products?

b) is having cheaper prices?

c) is about innovation?

d) or is about the quality / quantity?

.....who knows.

people say sony without competition will increase prices and their quality is going to suffer.

and I ask:
Is competition a one way street?

meaning, is only sony the one that should improve?

a few of examples:

Play Station basically has a "monopoly" in Europe and Asia. Ok? and it's very well know that PS has better localization in a territory in which there is no competition. How is this possible?


PS has had an amazing track record over the years releasing quality games in a consistent basis(quantity)....xbox has not....Where are the benefits of competition there?

PS made a VR headset, that's innovation ....where is Xbox's VR headset? Phill promised VR on stage in front of everyone...well, where is it?


The truth of the matter is that xbox has failed to compete against PS. The economic pressures and other markets like mobile/PC are the ones keeping Play Station in check.

Lets not forget once the ABK deal was a approved, what was the first thing MS did?....oh yeah, increase prices, reducing the MS rewards and still releasing subpar games.

so....the competition argument ain't tracking boyz. the xbox brand can happily exists on PC, Mobile and the Samsung gaming hub.

consoles are obsolete so the pundits say, anyway. i am sure Play Station has the days numbered.

now i have one last question, hope someone answer.

Today we have more competition in films and TV shows thanks to streaming....can someone explain why with so many choices, prices keep increasing? and the quality seemingly dropping? isn't this antithetical to the this whole argument?

 

[Topher]

That's kind of revisionist history. Physical games didn't stop getting sold and then Steam rose to fill the gap. As steam and other digital distribution (D2D, GFWL etc)became viable, physical games became less viable and eventually just disappeared. I don't remember anyone just copying discs - piracy remained a constant throughout the entire era but physical copies had nothing to do with it. I also don't remember anyone giving a shit about physical games disappearing, like I said at best they saved a download, that was it.

You don't remember copying? Why do you think DRM even became a thing? Copying was widespread because there was no DRM. Publishers tried all kinds of tricks like putting codes in the box, but that didn't stop anything. Efforts like GFWL tried to create a DRM for physical media but it failed. Steam was literally the solution that made PC gaming viable. Meanwhile a number of games only released on consoles where it was a closed ecosystem. Years after the fact games were published on Steam. None of that is revisionist anything my man.

Edit: although I didn't mean to say all publishers abandoned PC completely. So if that is what you are referring to then yeah, I should have been clearer.

 

[ulantan]

ok, before going to mimir Iet's use our mushroom tip head.

....Competition. Competition is good. right?

How do you define competition?

a) Is having multiple choices for services and products?

b) is having cheaper prices?

c) is about innovation?

d) or is about the quality / quantity?

.....who knows.

people say sony without competition will increase prices and their quality is going to suffer.

and I ask:
Is competition a one way street?

meaning, is only sony the one that should improve?

a few of examples:

Play Station basically has a "monopoly" in Europe and Asia. Ok? and it's very well know that PS has better localization in a territory in which there is no competition. How is this possible?


PS has had an amazing track record over the years releasing quality games in a consistent basis(quantity)....xbox has not....Where are the benefits of competition there?

PS made a VR headset, that's innovation ....where is Xbox's VR headset? Phill promised VR on stage in front of everyone...well, where is it?


The truth of the matter is that xbox has failed to compete against PS. The economic pressures and other markets like mobile/PC are the ones keeping Play Station in check.

Lets not forget once the ABK deal was a approved, what was the first thing MS did?....oh yeah, increase prices, reducing the MS rewards and still releasing subpar games.

so....the competition argument ain't tracking boyz. the xbox brand can happily exists on PC, Mobile and the Samsung gaming hub.

consoles are obsolete so the pundits say, anyway. i am sure Play Station has the days numbered.

now i have one last question, hope someone answer.

Today we have more competition in films and TV shows thanks to streaming....can someone explain why with so many choices, prices keep increasing? and the quality seemingly dropping? isn't this antithetical to the this whole argument?

Beautifully said.

 

[64gigabyteram]

ok, before going to mimir Iet's use our mushroom tip head.

....Competition. Competition is good. right?

How do you define competition?

a) Is having multiple choices for services and products?

b) is having cheaper prices?

c) is about innovation?

d) or is about the quality / quantity?

.....who knows.

people say sony without competition will increase prices and their quality is going to suffer.

and I ask:
Is competition a one way street?

meaning, is only sony the one that should improve?

a few of examples:

Play Station basically has a "monopoly" in Europe and Asia. Ok? and it's very well know that PS has better localization in a territory in which there is no competition. How is this possible?


PS has had an amazing track record over the years releasing quality games in a consistent basis(quantity)....xbox has not....Where are the benefits of competition there?

PS made a VR headset, that's innovation ....where is Xbox's VR headset? Phill promised VR on stage in front of everyone...well, where is it?


The truth of the matter is that xbox has failed to compete against PS. The economic pressures and other markets like mobile/PC are the ones keeping Play Station in check.

Lets not forget once the ABK deal was a approved, what was the first thing MS did?....oh yeah, increase prices, reducing the MS rewards and still releasing subpar games.

so....the competition argument ain't tracking boyz. the xbox brand can happily exists on PC, Mobile and the Samsung gaming hub.

consoles are obsolete so the pundits say, anyway. i am sure Play Station has the days numbered.

now i have one last question, hope someone answer.

Today we have more competition in films and TV shows thanks to streaming....can someone explain why with so many choices, prices keep increasing? and the quality seemingly dropping? isn't this antithetical to the this whole argument?

yeah man we get it. you're fluent in yappanese. jesus fuck this is a text wall that'd make thicc_girls_are_teh_best blush

 

[Varteras]

They are about to redefine how to unsell your platform to your consumer cuz no one is gonna buy the next Xbox if all the shit that you can only find on it will be available elsewhere.

The one thing I can see that people like S SneakersSO , Mibu no ookami , and I believe Thick Thighs Save Lives or thicc_girls_are_teh_best have said before (soooo thick around here), is that Microsoft might continue to release hardware, but it would be enthusiast, high-end hardware that diehard Xbox fans will continue to buy and sub to GamePass with. They'll charge enough to make a profit on any device they sell, manufactured in limited quantities. It might be the best hardware you can possibly get outside of a beefy PC rig. And even though it wouldn't have any exclusives, it would be the only console with GamePass and Day 1 Xbox games on it running at very high resolutions and framerate. Including CoD. They would still technically be in the console market, but not in an attempt to compete. Just make easy money off the hardcore Xbox fanbase and tech enthusiasts. Meanwhile, their software actually sells on all the other platforms. Microsoft would carve out a very particular niche for itself in the console space.

 

[FeralEcho]

The one thing I can see that people like S SneakersSO , Mibu no ookami , and Thick Thighs Save Lives have said before, is that Microsoft might continue to release hardware, but it would be enthusiast, high-end hardware that diehard Xbox fans will continue to buy and sub to GamePass with. They'll charge enough to make a profit on any device they sell, manufactured in limited quantities. It might be the best hardware you can possibly get outside of a beefy PC rig. And even though it wouldn't have any exclusives, it would be the only console with GamePass and Day 1 Xbox games on it running at very high resolutions and framerate. Including CoD. They would still technically be in the console market, but not in an attempt to compete. Just make easy money off the hardcore Xbox fanbase and tech enthusiasts. Meanwhile, their software actually sells on all the other platforms. Microsoft would carve out a very particular niche for itself in the console space.

Sounds like a bad proposition to me,I can see some people buying an xbox for some day 1 benefits on Xbox but I doubt the number would be something that is sustainable.I personally hate this consolidation and games available everywhere.It leads to less competition,devs becoming less ambitious and platform holders pouring less money into their platforms if they don't do well.As we can currently see with Xbox Series where they kind of gave up on making great games and went all in with Gamepass.I bought my 360 for the exclusives and my Series S for the amazing BC that you can't find on the competitor platform,as well as for the Xbox One era exclusives...Them going all in on subscription and moving to a 3rd party release schedule for their games on competitor platforms will mean this is it for actual impressive Xbox games,everything will move to a subscription style game since that will be the only way to counteract the loss of console unit sales.

 

[twilo99]

How are they going to do this when they have no games?

 

[Nydius]

I think you can't compare the decades of success nintendo has had and their foundation of ip and development to microsoft, who in 20 years have never created their own industry IP. They bought halo after it was already in development. Epic made gears of war and that's not even that big of an ip. They didn't make minecraft either.

People pretend like Microsoft is going to start doing something now that they've never done. It's not going to happen, especially not with their brand on the outs.

There's hope and then there is hopium.

Was just about to type the same thing.

Nintendo dominated the 1980's and most of the 1990's. Even as Sony overshadowed them in the home console space, Nintendo dominated the handheld market. The Wii U might have been a flop, but they still had millions of Wii's in use and they were riding high on the DS/3DS.

Microsoft, by comparison, has always been in last place. They had a brief shining moment in the early X360 days due to Sony's market blunder but by the back half of the generation, they ended up dead last again. Microsoft has lost money on every generation of Xbox hardware dating back to the OG Xbox. Other than the Wii U, I'm pretty sure every single Nintendo console has been quite profitable.

Microsoft has had 22, almost 23, years to build their brand and yet they're still in last place.
The gap between PS and Xbox is getting wider despite Microsoft spending billions to acquire established studios.

At the end of the day, Microsoft is a company that wants to make a profit and reports to shareholders and stake holders. If MS executives decide it's much more profitable for the company's gaming division to go multiplatform and turn their Xbox 'hardware' into low cost, mid-range Game Pass boxes, they'll do it in a heartbeat.

 

[poppabk]

You don't remember copying? Why do you think DRM even became a thing? Copying was widespread because there was no DRM. Publishers tried all kinds of tricks like putting codes in the box, but that didn't stop anything. Efforts like GFWL tried to create a DRM for physical media but it failed. Steam was literally the solution that made PC gaming viable. Meanwhile a number of games only released on consoles where it was a closed ecosystem. Years after the fact games were published on Steam. None of that is revisionist anything my man.

You don't remember safedisc etc. They pre-existed the death of PC physical games by a long time, the physical disc was the DRM, hence no CD patches being a big thing. I don't remember anyone ever buying a game and then burning a copy for a friend. Steam didn't do anything to combat piracy other than making the legal option better than downloading a hacked version. Piracy and physical copies were unrelated - unless you think PC piracy doesn't exist now that physical copies are gone?

 

[ElRenoRaven]

To be honest I'm all for this. I think with the franchises they own it would probably be a lot more profitable from this. They'd lose the hardware overhead they have and the product development costs too. Will it truly happen though who knows? If it's one thing I've learned from my many many years as a gamer is never rule out anything. I know when I was young I couldn't have imagined Atari being gone. I couldn't have imagined a future with Sega as 3rd party. I couldn't have imagined Midway being gone. I couldn't have imagined a lot of stuff ending up the way it has.

 

[DryvBy]

Physical copies never mattered on PC so there was not even any fight. PCs can't go away because there other uses for them including developing games.

They did for a long time. Game companies made it more annoying to buy their games so sadly, you just pirated them if you didn't want to deal with their crap (Red Alert 3 had a install limit, as examples). That wasn't resolved with digital but Steam just made it easier to buy something and "own it" without popping in CD keys and junk all the time.

 

[Dorfdad]

So this is what I think a lot of us were are excepting Microsoft to do, but they have to be strategic doing so, but I believe this is first steps into them becoming third part and exiting hardware. I do believe they will go one more gen cycle with the Xbox brand and with the purchases they could turn things around, but I think they see their future as a publisher now with a boat load of talent and IP's it kinda makes sense long term. That and start pushing towards cloud gaming over the next 10 years.