Astray
Member
Maybe because some of us are waiting for the first opportunity to exorcise Windows from their gaming life?
Windows is a detriment to the PC experience, not a boon.
"On life support" might be the most apt descriptor imo.
-
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.
[Windows Central] Microsoft is exploring options around letting third-parties build Xbox-branded devices
- Thread starter bitbydeath
- Start date
- Rumor
Windows is a detriment to the PC experience, not a boon.
Possibly, a stripped down version with an interface built for a controller which might even carry over in some way to full blown windows. There are two options, it's essentially what their xbox OS already is anyway but now given to third parties or it's just regular windows that boots into a controller friendly UI with xbox branding.
I think their 'xbox devices' would be mostly centered on licencing and guidelines with things like the controller though and will not be that different to the devices out there already. Think ROG Ally with buttons identical to an xbox controller. Sold for profit and xbox plastered on it. The fact that they are spending a great deal of marketing budget trying to build a new 'xbox' brand recently would make sense too.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
The age of remakes is so strong that MS is remaking 3DO. Wow.
That being said I don't know who will even consider it outside of Anglosphere. WW Xbox brand is not dying, it's dead. Even popular PC controllers are now DualSense/8bitdo combo here in Europe.
That being said I don't know who will even consider it outside of Anglosphere. WW Xbox brand is not dying, it's dead. Even popular PC controllers are now DualSense/8bitdo combo here in Europe.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
It requires those simple things to really take off. Needs to run steam and MS must get xbox console native apps running in windows.
I don't even know if that's possible. The licensing must be a nightmare but that's for them to worry about it.
Would be a dream come true if they could nail xbox apps running on a pc.
I don't even know if that's possible. The licensing must be a nightmare but that's for them to worry about it.
Would be a dream come true if they could nail xbox apps running on a pc.
Calverz
Member
I’ve been awake about an hour today and this will likely be the dumbest comment I’ll read today.
Congratulations!
chilichote
Member
The question is: should these 3rd party Xboxes be internally identical to Series S or X? Or will they just be pre-built PCs? In the latter case, the question is, why not just develop a decent app for the PC? Otherwise they will stumble into the next situation in which they have to compete (Steam Machines) and I don't think a pre-built PC with possibly stripped down Windows would stand a chance.
In the former case... who would even license this hardware given the current sales figures...^^
In the former case... who would even license this hardware given the current sales figures...^^
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I'd suspect this would be the case for two reasons:
Firstly I'd imagine that there would be some sort of proprietary "Xbox" hardware in there to ensure security with their back-end infrastructure -they can't have any old PC be hackable into an Xbox, that would defeat the object.
LIkely some sort of NPU or such that does decryption etc. Obviously this adds to build cost.
Secondly, its going to have to be presented as some sort of "premium" brand to be non destructive to the rest of their line-ups. Say for example Lenovo were the hardware partner, they wouldn't want to put themselves in a position where the products where they are partnered with MS on, to be perceived to offer better value/performance to the rest of line. It would make them (Lenovo) look bad, you know what I mean?
Both brands need to benefit, or else why partner up?
RetroGamingUK
Member
Parazels
Member
They, not we.
hinch7
Member
Not really. Just more choices to pick from. If you look at the handheld gaming space, the options for a high end portable has never been so good. You just need the right devices that innovate i.e Steam Deck, ROG Ally, LENOVO Legion Go etc. All work near flawlessly on Linux and the latter with tweaked windows. And provide console like experience and ease of use. Microsoft could offer that too. Valve are working on their next 'console' or TV box and other manufacters like Lenovo are getting in with their next handheld using SteamOS.
The issue now being that these won't be subsidized so costs of the machines will be much closer to prebuilt PC's than your average console. Still will be interesting to see something like an Lenovo Xbox lol.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It's not possible to know but the tendency is to use common PC parts and an XboxOS so there is no way to compete with Sony in price x performance. But if they use exclusive components (not available to PCs) then in practice we have a traditional console, and MS sharing the profit without any benefit for itself.
cireza
Member
None of these are a proper handheld console experience though.
GHG
Member
How isn't the Steam deck?
I'm currently playing etrian odyssey on mine and it even allows you to use the touch screen for the map.
hinch7
Member
I've gamed on my Steam Deck quite extensively and time spent rivals my most used handhelds (PSP, DS, 3DS). SteamOS is near perfect for handheld use. And could easily translate to desktop.
The only qualm I have with SteamOS (or Linux) with Proton is compatibility; which could be better. But with Microsoft handling the software and OS that shouldn't be an issue at all. At least in theory.
cireza
Member
Huge PC bricks with active cooling, low battery life, big screen games on a small screen, unoptimized display in my opinion.
It is not the portable experience I expect, but if people enjoy then great for them.
We could really go back to dedicated consoles and games, this would help people realize what has been lost.
Last edited:
REDRZA MWS
Member
People still don’t get it. MS has moved on from “just” console sales to putting their games and services everywhere, W10/11 PC’s alone dwarf PlayStation and Nintendo install base alone.
IMO, they should either make another “next gen” console, 3rd party or whatever, just don’t mass produce them because console space they won’t outsell Sony or Nintendo. So just like THEY’VE been saying, give players options and choices. Build a powerful Xbox just so rover manufacturer k owing the goal isn’t to see more plastic boxes than the conp, but to give your fans and Loyal consumers a choice.
Thats what they are doing and have been saying they are doing. This isn’t rocket science.
I’ve said this for years about Nintendo, I’ll gladly forego their EXCELLENT games if they hide then behind some out dated gimmkck filled toy. Put Zelda, Mario, and mario kart and Metroid on oc day 1, watch how Nintendo’s profits skyrocket.
IMO, they should either make another “next gen” console, 3rd party or whatever, just don’t mass produce them because console space they won’t outsell Sony or Nintendo. So just like THEY’VE been saying, give players options and choices. Build a powerful Xbox just so rover manufacturer k owing the goal isn’t to see more plastic boxes than the conp, but to give your fans and Loyal consumers a choice.
Thats what they are doing and have been saying they are doing. This isn’t rocket science.
I’ve said this for years about Nintendo, I’ll gladly forego their EXCELLENT games if they hide then behind some out dated gimmkck filled toy. Put Zelda, Mario, and mario kart and Metroid on oc day 1, watch how Nintendo’s profits skyrocket.
And mobile dwarfs all but dedicated gaming machines are more important to the gaming industry sales than theoretical install bases.
Crayon
Member
Oh so if the make something that partially competes with something they alt art make. Ya there would be more variables there. I'm working off the assumption that the things would be slight variations of some model they already have plus some new front gui from ms. So almost just a special edition treatment.
GHG
Member
The size I'll give you, but everything else is a non-issue. I'm getting around 8 hours of battery life on the deck oled and it's silent if I'm not playing anything that's graphically intense.
The library is pretty much the same as what's on the switch with the added bonus of decades of the PC back catalogue, and all of the newee games from the last couple of generations. So I'm not understanding the argument here. You can play games that are well suited to being portable or you can play games that aren't, it's up to you.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Love to the xbros because you're playing games and having fun and I'm all about that no matter where you want to play.
But as someone with a hatred of ms, this slomo trainwreck makes me horny.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
It's the Linux of consoles
GHG
Member
It runs at a horrible resolution on those devices, horrible framerate and I use one of these with the deck for anything touch screen (so that I don't smudge the screen):
Please help me understand, how would I be getting a better experience?
Sooner
Member
And they'll do whatever it takes to put an end to it.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
No they aren't. I don't see why people keep parroting this POV. They spent ~ $85 billion between two big 3P publishers, but that doesn't suddenly mean Microsoft are the biggest now.
There are too many ways to quantify that where MS come up short, for them to claim that type of title. You earn it over time. I can easily mention several other publishers who are bigger than them for various reasons, such as:
>Take Two: Single largest AAA gaming franchise in the industry (GTA) by scope/complexity, sales, and revenue
>Epic: Largest GAAS in the industry with Fortnite in terms of players and revenue
>Nintendo: Largest in the industry going by sales and revenue of published titles from 3rd-gen to current gen. Also bigger cultural cache than Microsoft.
>SIE: Larger than Microsoft in sales and revenue of AAA non-GAAS titles, more popular non-GAAS IP, higher historical average of highly-rated games
>EA: Single-largest publisher of football and soccer games
Also keep in mind ABK's revenue post-acquisition has been down compared to pre-acquisition, so that's just another potential point against the argument. Yeah, Microsoft spent a lot of money to buy them and Zenimax, but that didn't make the the largest publisher overnight. Unless you want to go by number of annually released titles and active games (GAAS, DLC content for non-GAAS), then I guess they may qualify as "biggest publisher" going by those metrics.
Horseganador
Member
A portable console with the Xbox operating system developed by other manufacturers but without being able to use Steam... I see a dark future for it.
Who said it couldn't use Steam?
Xbox already said something about the next console allowing other store fronts.
Xbox just want to be front & centered on these devices ( for now anyways)
cireza
Member
It runs at a perfectly fine resolution and the framerate is fine too. Since when have these games run poorly already ? These are Dungeon Crawlers. 120fps is unnecessary, and they just run fine on DS and 3DS.
Touch screen with stylus is pretty much the perfect experience as well, with the large dedicated screen below the action screen, and not all the bloated stuff thrown to the side. All of this without having to hold a huge, heavy brick.
You are also missing on all the Untold content, enhanced visuals and music (MUCH better), but this is another story. At least these were handheld games to begin with, so interface is not ridiculously small, even though space is now wasted in the text window, as usual.
Despite what I say, I do not mean to prevent you from having a great time on these games, so by all means, enjoy !
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Low-key this is the only reason I'm quite interested in the prospects of their plans here.
So imagine the meltdowns if SEGA became an OEM licensee of Steam OS instead
Very likely not. If MS want to ensure preservation of Windows as the OS for PC gaming, why would they let users undermine that by installing an OS whose main goal is to move people away from Windows for PC gaming?
Fact is, Steam OS is quite some miles ahead of Windows in terms of streamlining and resource-efficient modern PC gaming, by most takes, and more friendly for a console-like QOL & UI experience. The only thing gaming-wise MS have currently at a comparable level is Xbox OS, but that's a very much locked-down, hyper-custom version of Windows. They'll have to add compatibility for Windows applications via extended integration of various Windows kernel-level features, libraries, APIs etc into Xbox OS through some kind of protection layer, and filter whitelisted Windows apps through the Xbox Store.
Although, seeing how Xbox OS and Windows Store prioritize AppX as
GHG
was saying, I guess MS will need a second type of method to extend Windows functions for non-AppX software to run through Xbox OS. It's the only way they'll be able to have storefronts like Steam function on their device, and then they'd probably still need to find ways to tie in certain Xbox OS UI functions to those storefronts (maybe that's part of the reason for the news of them revamping aspects of their desktop Xbox app?). All of this on their own, BTW; I strongly doubt Valve or Epic (well, Epic may be more willing for market share reasons) will go out of their way to work with MS on this, as they gain little in the exchange compared to what Microsoft would gain.In fact I kind of wonder if Valve pushing new Steam devices might create complications in Steam being an alternative storefront on Xbox devices; it's highly unlikely Microsoft will license Steam OS (for reasons I mentioned earlier), but Valve probably doesn't want hardware manufacturers selling themselves on being Steam-compatible if they aren't licensed by them and don't comply with what we already know Valve are looking for OEM partners to do. I'm guessing MS and Valve would just settle on an agreement where as long as MS gets Steam compatibility going on their own, and they don't gimp storefront performance (accidentally or purposefully), they'll let MS enable access to Steam in whatever way fits the business model MS want to do.
You just likely won't hear MS say their stuff is "Steam-compatible" if that's a tagline reserved for OEM licensees of Steam OS. Rather, they'd say something like "You can access the Steam storefront", which is both a part of but still distinctly different from Steam OS.
EDIT: If anyone's wondering how/why Valve would "block" Microsoft from enabling Steam access on their devices...well, it's because these Xbox devices are going to be PC-like, but they aren't actually PCs, if that makes sense. These are devices that, to Valve, will likely be seen as direct competitors to their next wave of Steam systems, rather than generic SFF Windows PCs.
The fact MS are very likely using Xbox OS here (even if a modified version) would just give further support of that position to Valve. Again, I don't expect them to actually force MS to block Steam access; they'll let them provide Steam access on the Xbox devices as long as Steam game and launcher performance isn't gimped compared to similarly-spec'd PCs just to give an artificial edge to games on the Xbox Store.
Just looking at a possible reason why Steam would entertain the idea of enforcing that type of block, is all. It could kind of work both ways though: MS could, say, force Valve to not allow Windows as a dual-boot option on Steam devices.
But realistically, I wouldn't expect them to push with that because it just cuts away at potential customers to keep within the Windows ecosystem, and since these are PC gaming customers, MS has more a need (needs to work harder) to convince them to stay in Windows, than Steam needs to convince them to leave Windows for Steam OS.
maybe they partner with Steam to make a gaming focused Windows? who knows
they already got Home Edition and Professional, why not a Gaming Edition?
Steam won't partner with them and I hope they don't, either. That's exactly the kind of thing that'd let Microsoft take a cheap and lazy route; all the people who keep saying they want real competition, should be wanting MS and Valve to do their own thing and see who can do this particular platform ecosystem push better.
But that requires them being in actual competition. Which of course can be friendly (it usually is), but I wouldn't want to see that type of partnership which IMO would ultimately be detrimental for both parties.
Good point, and I think that's why MS still will need to have skin in the game, i.e still produce these devices themselves. Why expect 3P to do what you yourself aren't willing to do, especially with a brand that has deteriorated in value over the years?
Ideally, MS will be producing most of the stock themselves and we'll see a small handful of 3P OEMs supplement where it makes sense. Like I was semi-joking about a while ago if SEGA might want to be one of those OEMs for a market like Japan or parts of Asia, that would actually be a very smart thing to do. But the business model has to allow it.
And that business model has to reflect something closer to what the PC market is doing. For MS that'd have to pertain to both hardware and software, which is why I don't think they're fussed about bringing all of their games to PlayStation and Nintendo because, if they aren't trying to operate with the traditional business model anymore, their devices have to justify themselves on features, QOL etc., not content exclusivity.
If over time more OEMs want to make their variants or increase their volume of variants, then that's just a bonus. But none of that's going to happen if MS try cheaping out and refuse to manufacture or sell "standard" versions of these devices themselves. The good news for them, I guess, is that they probably have a good idea of what volumes they can realistically put on the market to sell, which will determine the pricing and profit margins they have, which will also have implications on what standardize specification standard they run with and the range of modularity/flexibility in altering aspects of that spec.
MS would likely much rather prefer 2-2.5 million Xbox PC-like devices a year (across handheld & home system) with healthy profit margins on a non-subsidized & soft-subsidized pricings, than sell 3 million Xbox consoles that they're losing $100 - $200 per unit and can't monetize as much due to drop in B2P sales for the store, stagnant subscriptions, and losing more players than they're able to bring in to grow an install base required for a more traditional console platform.
And with those numbers, they'd naturally attract more 3P OEMs to want to produce variations, because look at how many already want to make PC handhelds when that market (so far) is dictated by a Steam Deck moving ~ 1.5 million a year if that (though in their case, I think it's more a supply constraint; Valve could be doing more if they had higher capacity which is probably what the new Steam devices OEM push is about, on one level).
The reason a lot of us have doubts to MS pulling this off, is because they've completely failed at the traditional console business model, more or less since 2011, getter worst at it every year and then nosediving epically after 2020.
Their track record in managing a game platform successfully is not good, so until they can prove that their pivot will work, there will be many well-deserved doubts.
Last edited:
HogIsland
Member
I think the future of Xbox is PC, similar to steamOS. The challenge is maybe MS sucks at this.
Bigger than PC the aim is for multiple devices
HogIsland
Member
multiple devices, all PCs
Streaming devices also