It could change if a more popular brand took over ownership.
MS fumbles to much.
The Future Of The Xbox Brand
- Thread starter thicc_girls_are_teh_best
- Start date
- Status
MS fumbles to much.
even then what could they do? The brand is toxic at this point. Not seeing much value in it right now.
It's already being transitioned into a launcher for PC games ala steam. That's where I see it in the future, albeit integrated with a gamepass subscription for PC.
infact i don't even see some Xbox logos on the ads anymore. it's branded as (Xbox circular logo) followed just by the words 'GAMEPASS'.
so they're already abandoning the toxic 'XBOX' name, and transitioning to something with more goodwill surrounding it: ("GAMEPASS").
OP
OP
@Alabtrosmyster kind of already answered this earlier WRT the APIs. That said, I agree with you that at least the next Xbox will have upgradable CPU, GPU, RAM & SSD
But it's not irrelevant in reality, because that past is what people remember them for going into the future, until Microsoft corrects for the mistakes of that past. Which they have not actually really done yet.
GamePass simply is not enough to correct for those mistakes, neither is the Series S or Series X being what they are are hardware-wise. It's all about the games, and IMO as a platform holder MS needs a few notable AAA 1P games this gen that are actually industry-leading in at least a couple big ways. Until they can do that, and until they can make a game with broad mass appeal that people associate with them directly, then they'll still be behind.
Hmm...was Mattrick the reason Xbox almost died? I mean he was the face of the brand, but his problem was speaking way too early on the multimedia things. Games-wise, he actually did quite good for XBO's launch and first year or two. They had a stronger launch lineup than the PS4, that was thanks to Mattrick. The interesting Xbox exclusives that came for a few years after he left, were thanks to him. Games like the Ori titles, Cuphead, Quantum Break, Scalebound, Phantom Dust remake, ReCore etc. got going thanks to Mattrick.
What did Phil do for Xbox before GamePass? Well, he cancelled Scalebound, he cancelled Phantom Dust remake, he pushed out a Crackdown 3 that killed the franchise etc. I think some of the things people give Phil credit for with the XBO gen aside GamePass, especially anything before 2018, kind of isn't warranted because IMO that was Phil benefiting from what Mattrick had laid out. I think if Mattrick wasn't so blinded by multimedia (tho TBF, it was also OTHER Microsoft divisions pushing themselves onto the Xbox brand with XBO and Mattrick had no choice but to cooperate with them) and wasn't so blunt with some of his PR, he'd of stayed at Xbox and the brand would have actually been better off today IMO.
In that sense, he was kind of like a Jim Ryan who just said the wrong thing a little too many times, but lacked the long-term results record of a Jim Ryan, so he got das boot.
Except the early beta impressions for Bleeding Edge were actually quite good, going by what people said. Then things got changed before release and turned off everyone who liked what was there before. Also given Ninja Theory are backed by Microsoft now, why could they not have ensured Bleeding Edge was high-quality and at the same time, work on Hellblade II?
It's not like killing Bleeding Edge helped Hellblade II get developed any faster. Coming up three years since its initial reveal and still hardly any gameplay (or anything that clearly looks like gameplay uncontested), no release date in sight. So how was Bleeding Edge being sent to die beneficial to Hellblade II? Or Project Mara for that matter, which won't even come until 2025 at earliest at this rate, if at all.
The importance of exclusives is that they help give a console brand its identity, its culture (yes, consoles have a culture to them because the games they play are creative works just as much as they are products to be sold, and the marketing is often done with creative influences as well. If creativity is involved, some form of culture is created around it) and a means for it to stand out against competitors is a market. They also tend to have the advantage of being afforded the best technical and marketing resources, and ample funding, to create what are often among some of the most industry-defining games historically speaking.
We've seen that play out numerous times with Nintendo (SMB, Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Smash Bros, Pokemon etc.), Sony (Gran Turismo, Uncharted, TLOU, GOW 2018, Parappa the Rapper etc.), and Sega (Virtua Fighter 3, Outrun, Sonic, Panzer Dragoon, Shenmue etc.). Microsoft's had tastes of this too in the past like with Halo and Forza Horizon, but the point is that exclusives generally have the backing & resources behind them (and technical focus) to push aspects of gaming more than most 3P contemporaries of their time period.
That, and it's tradition to have some new 1P exclusives for a console launch, and that isn't a bad or shameful history to run away from, either. I would also say sub services like Netflix, Disney+, HBOMax etc. disagree with your idea that exclusive content doesn't matter, otherwise those services would be freely sharing their originals with their rivals.
XBO didn't drop off because it had good launch exclusives. It fell off because Xbox management were piss-poor in curating further exclusive content (let alone had bad marketing) after the launch period. They were not able to land a balance between library, marketing, messaging & pricing the way Sony did with PS4, where they had a great launch even with a weaker launch exclusive slate, and just kept improving from there.
Let's not forget about consoles that did extremely well by having strong launch lineups, either. SNES had Super Mario World, PS1 had Toshinden & Ridge Racer, even the OG Xbox carved ahead of Gamecube (especially in the West) thanks mainly to the strength of Halo, a launch exclusive. Maybe you can say launch exclusives aren't as critical today as they once used to be, since the new consoles are BC from Day 1, but they're still very important IMHO.
Well for starters, they could have spread those eggs out. They could have polished Bleeding Edge and touched it up as a Series X/S 1P launch game. They could have tried going for a hell of a lot more than The Falconeer as a launch exclusive, that's for sure. They could have tried netting a game like Watch Dogs into GamePass Day 1.
There are many things they could have done to avoid the embarrassment that was having no launch exclusives for their new system, MS simply did not care to provide any.
IMO I think you're actually making a dangerous argument to excuse lack of effort from MS 1P if the idea is they are selling out (which they aren't; albeit they're pacing ahead of XBO & 360 but not by some huge 5 million lead, it's much less than that IMO) without any big games...why should they bother with any big games? I mean people are going to buy a console regardless, right?
Except I don't think that's the case, otherwise GamePass subs (which are strongly tied to Xbox consoles) would not be slowing to a stall by now. Maybe there was a period between launch up to early in the current year where lacking big content was not a detriment for the hardcore adopters (Halo Infinite & FH5 coming out last fall also helped, if momentarily), but apparently that could be affecting GamePass growth on console now. Not having the content they need, Microsoft might've figured to do some sales promos with the Series S to move units and hopefully drive GamePass numbers before FY 2023 Q2 results closed (at the end of November).
I don't think it's really fair to equivalate PS2, PS3, PS4, Wii or Wii U's launches with Series X & S. For one, some of those still had some pretty good games, like Tekken Tag Tournament on PS2 and Red Steel for the Wii. But more importantly, they still had launch exclusives, including 1P ones! Series X & S had virtually no launch exclusives except for The Falconeer, which was quickly forgotten about and had virtually no impact at release anyway. It's like Microsoft didn't even try; at least Sony & Nintendo's systems did. And it's not really about bringing up Series X/S launch environment to hold it against them today, but more to the fact that people won't simply "forget" that the systems launched with no new big exclusives.
So when they have a year like they have this year, where the only 1P releases were Pentiment & Grounded, and no big 3P exclusives for either platform (Xbox or GamePass) outside of arguably Plague Tale: Requiem,...that's just going to compound on stuff like Halo Infinite turning into a wet fart, FH5 ending up in a mediocre state, Flight Sim not really appealing to most people out of that specific niche, Bleeding Edge DOA, Halo Infinite's bad 2020 showing, Starfield's disappointing June Showcase showing, Everwild dev problems, Perfect Dark dev problems...all of that then being contrasted against what companies like Sony & Nintendo have been able to pull off in the same time period.
Yeah, it's gonna look bad for Xbox comparatively speaking.
But what if 2023 is just another 2022? What if Starfield ends up disappointing or gets delayed into 2024? What if Hellblade II still isn't ready for a 2023 launch? What if RedFall isn't your cup of tea after all? What if Avowed isn't going to hit the rumored 2023 release?
Will you just say you're looking forward to 2024, or will you hold Microsoft's feet to the fire for bad management of Xbox division?
The issue shouldn't be those games going to GamePass, however. It should be that Microsoft did not try hard enough to land some marketing deals with those games themselves, and if them insisting on GamePass Day 1 inclusion was a reason for 3P publishers NOT agreeing to marketing deals with Xbox, then that should tell you everything that needs to be said.
In other words, that it's the 3P publishers themselves who are not agreeing to doing content releases for GamePass (certainly not Day 1), and has very little to do with Sony acting draconian and locking the entire 3P industry from doing business with Microsoft for GamePass. Yes, for games Sony have a direct hand in helping co-develop or fund in some capacity, like the recent Callisto Protocol, or RE VIII, of COURSE they don't want Microsoft to reap the benefits of what Sony themselves put into those games money-wise for dev or marketing, while Microsoft themselves do nothing. How is that fair on the time & money Sony has put into those games?
Outside of those specific games though, you need to ask the actual 3P publishers why they don't see GamePass for Day 1 releases as viable for their business models. There's plenty who have said it, even ABK have said it going by court document transactions!
Again, you need to ask the actual 3P publishers; the idea that Sony have draconian clauses preventing every major 3P publisher from putting their games into GamePass that Sony don't even have any involvement in is ridiculous, and Microsoft knows it. But that didn't stop them from insinuating such with those statements regardless.
Sure Sony doesn't care for GamePass's growth (why should they?), but 3P PUBLISHERS THEMSELVES also don't seem to care about GamePass's growth, because it's in conflict with their primary business models. That's why companies like ABK have been revealed as saying they would never even put their content into a service like GamePass unless they were being purchased by a company owning such a service.
Ironically enough, Microsoft is one of those companies
.Again, it's about the macro market of customers and gamers, not necessarily just yourself. I'm glad you can have the perspective you do on this, but you have to agree there are a LOT of other people who do not, and can have very valid reasons for doing so.
Honestly, how much higher in demand are they compared to XBO? And which one in particular? I've done some sales calcs, I would say as of this post, at most Xbox Series are probably a bit north of 15.5 million sold-through (to customers). For reference, they were probably at 13.16 million sold-through at the start of June, which is less than 2 million ahead of the 360 at that point of the lifecycle.
At most I'd figure Series are 2 million ahead LTD over XBO and 360 sold-through, which IMO doesn't sound great considering the Series S exists. The system that was supposed to help drive the latter-gen mainstream and casual adoption to the early adoption phase of the console cycle. The cheapest of the current-gen system options, by a good mile. But combined S & X are "only" maybe at most 2 million ahead LTD? And that's not considering the cash MS are losing subsidizing Series S units with all the big sales price cuts that have been going on since the middle of Summer!
My idea isn't for them to be PCs, but to change to a business model where they clearly grow where they want to grow (1P sales revenue via supporting multiple platforms with games & services, making further gaming acquisitions, needing to ensure they don't provide a threat to Sony & Nintendo's platform models considering Microsoft doesn't need console gaming via the traditional business model nearly as much as Sony and especially Nintendo do, etc.). Doesn't Microsoft supposedly not care about console unit sales? So, what difference does it make that they sell less Xbox devices going forward on a new model, if they're actually making profit on each unit sold and provide something with better value as both a gaming device & PC productivity package than most OEM PC NUCs, or what a PC user could comparatively build going a-la carte?
OP
OP
Because those games would be locked to cloud streaming meaning Nintendo loses a SIGNIFICANT amount of 3P sales cut revenue, of which whatever cut they can arrange with Microsoft for GamePass on Switch would NOT replace. Additionally, it would make Nintendo as a platform holder much more dependent on Microsoft, another platform holder, meaning Nintendo themselves become LESS able to provide for their 3P partners as an independent platform holder.
It's a losing scenario and a worst-case for Nintendo if Microsoft were to acquire Japanese games publishers and relegate future Switch support to cloud-only. That's pretty much going to make Nintendo irrelevant in Japan, one of their strongest markets by far, and that in turn would weaken them significantly in non-Japanese markets.
Except if the Switch 2 features good enough DLSS 3.0 support, it can potentially more or less hang with the Series S, which Microsoft insists all devs support with native builds. So I don't see this being a factor.
Except most Japanese devs DO make games to accommodate Nintendo's hardware! They do this because of the strength of Nintendo's hardware market in Japan and other Asian regions. Microsoft acquiring those devs & pubs and relegating them to stream-only solutions for Nintendo effectively kills Nintendo's market chances because nothing prevents those games from streaming to non-Nintendo mobile devices.
And without native builds, and without a Switch 2 having smartphone-like features or performance in line with what the baseline for a smartphone can have for wireless networks, video decode, latency features in the future, the Switch 2 dies.
Actually Google did want to spend money on game dev, they just wanted to do it the way Sony & Nintendo had been doing it, in a way that didn't cause massive market disruption via mass consolidation of 3P publishers. In a way you can say they respected the traditional model as it had been proven and didn't ruffle feathers that needn't be ruffled.
And by feathers being ruffled, I mean in terms of having anti-trust lawsuits potentially pressed against you, potentially looking like a greedy big corp to many gamers & customers, potentially permanently removing once-multiplat games, potentially using bought revenue & market power to dominate influence and box in choices for other market competitors, all while possibly engaging in predatory pricing.
No, it doesn't
You're right, it's not Microsoft's fault. But if they are ever proven to be guilty of leveraging what they already have and pushing predatory pricing to entrench themselves that much further, then it's going to wreck whatever they've been trying to do WRT subscription services and acquiring content for them anyway.
Sorry, but this is a HORRIBLE take. Companies shouldn't be allowed to just "run rampant" because that's how we end up with legit anti-competitive practices being fully engaged on customers.
Having a huge chunk of a market in itself isn't a monopoly, I agree there. Otherwise both Valve and PlayStation would have been ruled as monopolies. The question is HOW those products got to gaining majority market-share and, at the end of the day, it was the customers who chose their offerings over the competitors due to perceived better value, and companies like Valve & Sony did not engage in illegal conduct severely undercutting competitors in pricing, preventing them from securing components required, blocked them from working with retailers etc.
They also did not simply buy their way to gaining majority market-share in their segments of the market. Microsoft are actively looking to increase their revenue in gaming by buying up 3P publishers, and rolling their revenue into Xbox division's. That isn't increase in revenue earned by providing a superior product to customers willing to pay fair prices for it (i.e prices that aren't price-gouging the customers and where a company realistically would need to be pricing the product at in order to have healthy revenue & profit flow to sustain that business as if it were the sole market of business they operated in (even IF they have other divisions under them!).
Okay but now you're talking about Google, Amazon, Apple etc. and I think that's getting away from what I was focusing on here, which is Microsoft in relation to Sony & Nintendo.
It's a bit more complicated than that, though. I mean there's a reason the regulation process for ABK is as involved as it is. I would like to think regulators are actively getting deep into the topics we are discussing and likely only touching the surface on here, and other related things we probably haven't even considered, frankly.
P
peter42O
Guest
I agree with you in regards to the games aspect but we're only two years in with at least six more years to go.
Mattrick hurt Xbox with his Kinect obsession and TV TV TV which was all him. Myerson replaced him and didn't want to fund anything.
I don't give any credit to Spencer pre-2018 but I also don't blame him either because he was never the main guy in charge. He always had multiple people above him that simply didn't care about Xbox and wanted to shut it down. Spencer gets credit for keeping Xbox alive, Game Pass which is one of the best innovative ideas in gaming history because he was going against traditional and all this other old, outdated and obsolete shit. Most of all, he gets credit for finally convincing Nadella and their shareholders to invest into Xbox which obviously, they've done by far.
Ori and Cuphead were great. Quantum Break was good but not great. Scalebound was fucking trash and should have been cancelled sooner in my opinion. Crackdown 3 went through development hell via multiple studios and to be honest, it should have been cancelled alongside Scalebound. Phantom Dust didn't work out so he cancelled it. If something isn't working, you cancel it and you move on. You don't keep trying to fix it.
I disagree 100% with you thinking that if Mattrick would have stayed, Xbox would be better. No freaking way. Mattrick WAS the reason (along with Myerson) that Spencer had to convince Nadella to keep Xbox alive. If Mattrick was any good, Spencer wouldn't have been in that position to begin with. Spencer literally resurrected Xbox by convincing Nadella to go all in with gaming.
Even if Bleeding Edge was good, it simply didn't hit or find an audience. If anything, it should have been delayed to the Series X/S launch which is something I would agree with you on. I simply see it as an Overwatch clone that was never doing to do anything especially on an almost dead platform in Xbox One.
Exclusive content matters but it's not the end all be all and at launch, it rarely matters. Look at every console that's ever launched. How many can you say launched with an exclusive that was worthing buying the console for day one? Because from my history, I have that listed as 4 consoles all time, 3 of which are Nintendo. SNES/N64/Xbox/Switch. That's literally it. PS5 can't be included because the most popular game Miles was cross-gen and outside of Ray Tracing, what are you really missing? Not much if anything.
I simply believe that when it comes to launching a console, exclusives are highly overrated because the hardcore fans are going to buy the console day one regardless of what exclusive games are there or not. Exclusives only matter from the halfway point to the end because that's when you'll gain in all the casuals who didn't buy the console day one because they're not the hardcore fans.
I do agree with you in regards that first party games are more likely to push the consoles and gaming itself further than third party games.
My point with XBO was that despite it having good launch exclusives and the better first two plus years of the generation compared to PS4 which only truly had Bloodborne and that's it, it didn't matter did it? If exclusives are so important, consumers/gamers wouldn't have cared about Microsoft's missteps because the games were better.
SNES had SMW but it also had an amazing first year which is arguably still the best ever. PS had some great games but that's not why PS dominated. They dominated because Nintendo was a year later and sticking with cartridges while Sega had so much in house fighting and launched a rushed out Saturn at $400. Sony dominated more because both of their competitors fucked up.
Like I said in the previous segment, exclusives matter but more so later on as the library is being filled out for people to look over. Launch, the hardcore are buying the consoles regardless of what games are there.
Even a polished and great Bleeding Edge wouldn't have changed anything. There was nothing they could do. They either accept it or you go elsewhere. Since Microsoft sold out all of their consoles at launch and have pretty much continued to do so for two years, I would say that it didn't mean much. And how would Watch Dogs Legion change anything when it's a multi-plat? I don't think that they didn't care. Just like 2022, they realized that there's nothing that they can do so they accept it and they move forward.
P
peter42O
Guest
I'm not excusing anything. I just don't see 2020 launch as an issue today. Was it two years ago? Sure but does it matter now? No. Am I supposed to keep mentioning the shitty first two and half years of PS4 where I got a few 6 and 7 rated exclusives? I had nothing until 2016 and I never once brought that up back then because what for? It's not going to change anything and just like now, I know the games are coming. It's not like they're going an entire generation with nothing. lol
FH 5 is over 25m players and doing amazing. What are you talking about? Flight Sim is niche but still big enough for a 10 year commitment/contract with Asobo so it must be doing something. Half the stuff you mention is from years ago as if it still matters when it doesn't.
Sony and Nintendo have done great. No argument there. The main difference is that Sony's studios were further ahead with their games where as majority of Microsoft's studios were stuck fulfilling their contracts from Embracer/Take Two Interactive or had just a released a game with the previous two years and were never going to be ready.
It only looks bad to PlayStation fans who for some odd reason talk more about Xbox then they do their own brand which makes zero sense. And all the people who have purchased an Xbox Series X/S obviously don't believe that it looks bad because if they did, they wouldn't buy the console to begin with.
While 2022 was disappointing, the reason I don't complain or bitch is because I can't. I didn't complain about Sony giving me mediocre games until 2016 with PS4 so if I complain now, I would be a hypocrite which I don't want to be. Also, 2023 is what 2016 was last generation. If Microsoft releases Redfall and Starfield and I like/love and enjoy both games, why would I care about 2022? I'm not. Just like I didn't care about 2013 launch, 2014 or 2015 once I was playing Alienation and Uncharted 4 in 2016.
As for Microsoft doing other stuff, there was nothing they could do. Third party games either had Sony marketing so eliminate them and then, a shit ton of games were delayed to 2023 including a few big AA titles for Xbox - Warhammer 40,000: Darktide, Atomic Heart, Stalker 2, etc. Microsoft has no control over what third party publishers do and if anything, I think they would prefer delays if it means the games will be better. I know that's what I prefer.
If 2023 is the same as 2022, then I will be the first to complain but as of now, no reason for me to do so. Personally, im NOT expecting Hellblade 2 or Avowed in 2023. Was never expecting Hellblade 2 before 2024 and I believe that it will be their Fall/Holiday 2024 game. Avowed could have been 2023 but once I knew that they were expanding the game and making it bigger than originally planned, I knew that wasn't releasing in 2023.
Don't say that about Redfall!!! Joking aside, everything I have seen and read about Redfall appeals to me completely. I love looter shooters, been wanting a game with vampires since I played and completed Vampyr years ago and it's Arkane who are one of my favorite studios under Microsoft. As for Starfield, my expectations are low because im not a BGS guy and never have been. If I like it and actually complete it, awesome but if not, no biggie for me.
There is one other aspect that offsets Microsoft's first party exclusives and that is of course, Game Pass. When im getting several third party games day one into the service that in most cases I would never buy, this becomes a massive positive for me with Xbox because I can try games that I probably wouldn't have. I already have 5 games for early 2023 that's day one on Game Pass. 6 games if I include the Lego Star Wars game that I will be playing in January.
This is probably why I rarely get upset in regards to the lack of Microsoft's first party games. Even when they don't have any that I want to play, there's either always something else that they do have via Game Pass day one that I want to play or I have a third party multi-platform game that im playing. I rarely have a gap of nothing new to play.
Like I said, I have no issue with Sony putting a clause in their marketing deals that prevents those games from going in Game Pass for a certain amount of time. I would do the exact same thing if I was Sony. It's smart business.
As for Microsoft, if you watch their Xbox Showcase the last two years, they don't care about major marketing deals anymore or timed exclusivity. For them, it's all about Game Pass. If they can't get the game into Game Pass day one, they will not only let you go to Sony, they'll tell you to go to Sony because they're not paying for them anymore especially when so many of them have backfired over the years. It's just not worth the investment.
After the 2021 showcase, I kinda thought this already but 2022 Showcase proved what I thought a year earlier. In 2021, they had Far Cry 6, Battlefield 2042 and Diablo 2 Resurrected. In 2022, they had none. Granted, maybe you could count Overwatch 2 and Diablo IV but obviously, that was because Microsoft is going to own ABK at some point. For 2023 showcase, im not expecting any major third party marketing deals. The only exception to this is if they have a live showcase with an audience at E3. If it's digital only, expect it to be very similar to 2022.
On a related side note - if I had to choose between for example, a third party timed console exclusive for Xbox but no Game Pass day one OR that third party game being on PlayStation day one but I get it on Game Pass day one, then, Sony can have it day one because timed exclusivity does nothing for me. I would always take it being on Game Pass day one because unlike the timed exclusivity, that is actually a positive and benefit for me.
I never said every third party game. I said the games that Sony has a marketing deal with which obviously, isn't every game. Most third party publishers decline Game Pass deals because they don't want to go against their traditional business model. I do believe that Game Pass is a massive benefit for a lot of third party games. Take Gotham Knights for example. It bombed. It just did. A day one Game Pass deal would have helped the game especially since it can be played in co-op.
Game Pass would have to be at a much higher subscriber count for third party publishers to accept day one deals. Sony doesn't want Game Pass to grow because they don't want it to potentially influence their own business model seeing as how they don't want to change it.
I agree with you on this. I know a lot of people don't care or have any interest in Game Pass and that's completely fine. Not everything is going to be for everyone. But the more options, the better it is for everyone because you can then choose for what is best for you.
Personally, I have Series consoles at around 18m total. But for argument sake, let's go with your almost 16m. They're still several million ahead of every Xbox generation previously and unlike all three of them, they've had stock shortages. If there were no shortages, I believe they would be doing even better than what they are.
I get what you're saying with your idea in regards to them changing their business model, I just don't see them doing that especially when they only changed their current business model four years ago and has been more successful than their previous three generations and as you've pointed out numerous times, that's without any major top tier industry changing exclusives so imagine how the Xbox brand will grow once their exclusives start hitting.
Why would people talk about brands?
We have tons of games threads, look at all that gow:r threads, the cat game, etc.
There would be little arguments about business models, execs bs and what not if there was only Nintendo and Sony fans... We live and breathe games.
P
peter42O
Guest
Nintendo could lose money but at the same time, they would be getting games that they normally wouldn't be getting in the first place due to their hardware always being two generations behind. For a Japanese publisher like Capcom, looking up what they've released on Switch, it's literally all old games/ports and collections. Only the Monster Hunter games were actual new releases. Depends more on the publisher. Of course, Microsoft acquiring a Japanese publisher remains to be seen. All I care about is that if it happens, I hope it's Capcom because I have minimal to no interest in the rest. lol
True but it depends on the format of the console and what features the console itself has. Plus, the games would have to run well in handheld mode which doesn't apply to Microsoft or Sony.
A lot of them do but specifically looking at Capcom, all they've done is Monster Hunter. The other almost 50 games on Switch are either ports, old ass games or cloud versions. So while other publishers may do Switch native games like Square Enix, im pointing out Capcom because that's the only Japanese publisher I have any interest in seeing Microsoft acquire.
In this regard, obviously, it's all a what if. Nothing can be known for sure until if/when it happens.
Google was in on the Bethesda bidding and they didn't come close. Having one or two studios that weren't even ready years after Stadia launched, im sorry but in 2022, if you want to make an impact and gain market share and not be dead within a few years, trying to do it the Sony and Nintendo way is quite simply asinine. This isn't going to work in 2022 for a company entertaining the "console" (so to speak) gaming market and thinking that a horrible pricing model/structure was going to work the way that Google thought it was going to.
I wouldn't have seen Google as being greedy or this or that if they would have acquired Bethesda. I would have looked at them, like, holy shit, they're actually serious. But I knew since day one when Phil Harrison was on stage that they weren't so none of it really matters now.
No, it doesn't
Yes, it does. Money equals power which equals control. There's a reason why the rich and powerful get away with pretty much everything and the nobodies like us would be thrown away for life to never ever be seen from again. Granted, there will be a person that's made an example of but this is extremely rare. As for companies, money wins because all you have to do is look at any one of them. All the shareholders/investors don't give two shits about anything except money and profit.
As for Apple, if Microsoft offered them a shit ton of money, they would just sit there and take it because that's all these companies care about.
This is why I have said that regulators should ensure that this doesn't happen by including concessions in regards to these aspects of business. If regulators let them be, then you can't blame Microsoft for taking advantage of the situation. There's also always loopholes and all this other shit that allows them to get around stuff so until it's actual laws across the board, every company is going to be borderline when it comes to crossing the line. I do however agree with you though.
When I said run rampant, I meant that if you're going to allow companies to do certain things, then you have to allow the other companies to do what they want. You can't pick and choose because majority of the time, it's all political bullshit that has no legal basis whatsoever and is just people trying to make a name for themselves. My thing is you either give leeway to let the companies do what Microsoft is doing now or you shut them all down and I don't mean the companies, I mean shutting down what they all want to do.
I understand your point of view in regards to "how" they get to where they eventually are but at the same time, if a company like Microsoft is looking to acquire publishers, it's not like other publishers or companies can't go after what they want to in general and in regards to what Microsoft goes after. ABK was for sale. This is a fact. And if you're looking to sell, you're not going to go those that don't have any money. lol. You're going to the companies that have the most.
Microsoft going after ABK is a brilliant business move because mobile/cloud only is worth the asking price because they're still a long ways away from competing and being dominant in both. King will make them an instant player in mobile gaming. As for increasing revenue, like I said a few paragraphs above, money always wins. Do you truly believe ANY of these companies including Microsoft and Sony are NOT in it for the money first and foremost? Of course they are. This is why I don't go nuts and just use what they give me to my advantage and that's it.
The goal of every company is to make more revenue and in turn more profit. If companies didn't do this, they wouldn't be in business for very long. Here's a scenario for you - what if Tencent would have somehow acquired ABK? Then what? Because to me, this IS a monopoly because of their dominance in the mobile gaming market where as Microsoft has well, nothing. lol. They're literally non-existent when it comes to mobile gaming. Sure, you could argue that Tencent would keep the gaming stuff as is but at the same time, you don't know this for a fact.
It seems and correct me if im wrong, but your main issue and others seems to be that Microsoft isn't building up Xbox the Sony way. That's how a lot of this comes across to me as. Which in all honesty, is such bullshit because four out of the top five Sony studios were literally acquired by them. And I don't care if they worked with them for a century or not. That means nothing. The end result was that they acquired them for the simple fact that they believed that they could make their brand stronger, better and more profitable which is what it's all about to begin with.
For Microsoft, in all honesty, fuck the Sony way. Why should Microsoft take decades before acquiring studios and/or publishers that are actually willing to sell to them? Like, why? Optics? Fuck optics. It's all about what's best for the company, their business and their direction. Microsoft wants to be major player in console gaming, mobile, PC and eventually game streaming. They're not getting there by wasting decades for no apparent reason other than oh, this is how it should be done when it reality, no, it's not. It's just how Sony has done it because they're not Microsoft. If they were Microsoft, they would have acquired a lot more shit. They just don't have the money and capital to do so. It's not because they don't want to because they do. Every company does. Those who say they don't are full of shit.
Most importantly, what everyone seems to forget is the simple fact that ABK was looking to sell and went to Microsoft. What is Microsoft supposed to do? Say no thanks? LMAO. If Nadella would have passed on the opportunity to acquire ABK, I guarantee you that the shareholders and investors would have tried to force him out as CEO because as the CEO, you're main job and purpose is to make the company as money as possible. It's not to be nice or friendly or any of this other bullshit. It's to make more and more money. Like the saying goes, money talks and bullshit walks.
I understand your fear. I do but as of now, it's completely unfounded with no basis or merit whatsoever. Just like CMA, it's nothing but "what if's" and "theories" and worst of all, all this stuff is like 20+ years down the line with obviously no guarantee of it ever playing out like some believe that it will. As for gaming itself, there's a shit ton of publishers and development studios with new ones being founded monthly if not weekly. We just don't know about them. Gaming industry has never been better or stronger than it is right now and quite honestly, regardless of how they do it, a more competitive Microsoft who's up Sony's ass will in turn make your PlayStation and what Sony offers you better tomorrow than what it is today.
True but I add them in too because Microsoft wants to get into mobile gaming and streaming obviously which is where these companies dominate in. That's why I include them. ALso because Amazon does have Luna which is a game streaming service and Google did have Stadia. Then you have Apple who has been rumored for a while to be in R&D on a console which wouldn't shock me at all. But there's a few areas that Microsoft is trying to get into that have to do with these companies much more than they do Sony and especially Nintendo. To me, it's all relevant in one aspect or another.
Agreed.
Not a good outlook for their flagship IP…
Halo Infinite is a sinking ship
Well, publicly they said that their idea is to keep both Bethesda and ABK games multiplatform using many times Minecraft as example. And also rightfully explained that it's the only way it makes financial sense because their ecosystem has a small market share and to put their games day one on GP will highly hurt their game sales.
My theory is that they may have some minor (like Redfall) console exclusives and mostly will be temporal (Starfield and maybe if it doesn't end being multi since day one Elder Scrolls VI). I think they'll use 'regulators are forcing us to make them multi' as excuse for their fans to bring them to PlayStation. Same goes with keeping CoD on PS forever.
At the same time, they'll use their possible console exclusivity or not, temporal or not, as weapon to try to get better conditions from Sony and Nintendo: like trying to lower the 30% for the MS games on their platforms, or to allowing to put GP or a MS store on their consoles, etc. Even if they know that Sony and Nintendo never will let them put GP or a MS store on their platforms or that very likely won't reduce them the 30%.
I think once MS fans are used to see MS acquired publishers releasing their games day one on rival consoles -and not because of 'previously signed deals with Sony' as excuse-, as right now happens with Minecraft, then the next step for MS will be to start releasing Microsoft Game Studios games on rival consoles (I mean, Halo, Forza, Gears, etc) and probably at the same time they turn Xbox hardware into a Windows PC and stop making console hardware by themselves, leaving it to 3rd parties who may be interested on them.
So basically doing a Sega and moving to a full multiplatform 3rd party console publisher, but in the case of MS continuing as platform holder in Windows, maybe other brands makeing 'Xbox licensed consoles' and still releasing mobile games via King and AAA games on mobile via cloud gaming/GPU.
Future MS gaming revenue does not equal current MS gaming revenue + current ABK revenue.
ABK revenue on PC and Xbox will be highly reduced due to putting their games on GP and will be even way more reduced if they go console exclusive with ABK games, particularly with CoD.
So their gaming revenue will continue being behind Sony, but they may pass Nintendo at least until they make CoD console exclusive if they ever make it.
By acquiring ABK, the ABK games aready are on Windows and Xbox, and only a tiny portion of PS users that still aren't also there would move if they go full console exclusive. Meaning that not only Xbox, the Windows business won't change/won't be particularly benefited of the acquisition. Same goes with Azure: as MS mentioned they don't use propietary hardware or something like that. Azure is only a sofware tool to remotely manage servers with no particular difference with its competitors. I don't know if ABK was already using it, in that case MS loses a big customer.
And if not, they won't bump Azure's business by using it more internally if no external company is paying for its costs. I mean, the main costs of the servers is to buy the hardware, to pay their electricity and internet bills, to pay their storage and maintenance. These costs are the same independently of using Azure or not, since Azure is only one of the many software tools to manage these servers. If ABK moves from let's say move their servers from AWS or other competitor to Azure, MS won't save a ton of costs.
Office is even more unrelated to gaming, this acquisition won't affect them at all.
Regarding Sega, Sega simply decided that it would be better for them to aim for a bigger market by betting more on multiplatform, properly localized worldwide releases at the same time and take more advantage of game subs with both newish games and also reviving/emulating old games. Sony and Nintendo already had a good support from them, so who gets more benefited with this move is MS. So I assume that Sega told MS: hey, we're paying our servers at somewhere else. Would you give us a cheaper price if we make these IPs multiplatforms and include these other games on GP? It's a win/win situation both for Sega and all platform holders since now all will get more Sega games even if some may lose some B (or C) tier Sega IP exclusivity (nothing that would worry Nintendo or Sony). Sega is also building a cloud gaming stuff for their arcades in Japan so probably also had a part in that deal with MS.
I mean, it's something Sega did because it's better for Sega. MS didn't affect this decision, and even less this acquisition. This acquisition also won't generate similar decisions from 3rd parties like the one Sega took.
Yes, as of now the main ones are Forza, The Crew and NFS. Other than that I don't remember any meaningful players.
I think that MS has been slowly transitioning their gaming focus to PC, and in consoles to a multiplatform 3P approach. So continuing this trend I think they'll end abandoning their own hardware.
I think that unless regulators force them, MS, Nintendo, Apple and Google won't allow MS put a MS store on their platforms, which seems to be a big focus for MS, or at least to bring GP there.
In the case of consoles, I think that the only way that Nintendo and Sony would allow GP on their platforms would be years after MS abandoned Xbox hardware and fully transitioned to full multiplatform 3P publisher: publishing all the MS stuff that makes on PS and Nintendo devices for years. Once that happen, when seeing MS more like a partner than as a competitor, they'd do as Sony did with EA or Ubisoft and would allow a GP on PS, but only featuring MS published games that are also available for purchase on PS.
Apple and Google, as MS does or the other console maker do, charge that 30% not only for giving access to their userbase, but for the costs of certificating releases, store and OS level features server costs like matchmaking, friends, messaging or trophies, store/game related customer support costs, platform wide marketing costs, game submission and moderation team costs, transaction platforms (credit carts/paypal/etc) costs, etc.
I mean, people who run platforms and stores have a ton of costs, so 3rd party publishers pay their part. Is 30% too high and would make sense to charge less and particularly to don't charge almost nothing to indies? Yes, but it doesn't give MS an unfair advantage. MS does the same, and in the case of mobile MS tried to compete in different ways in the past with their own mobile platforms and failed.
MS already was already using that model in Xbox and on their PC store before the Apple App Store and Google Play were released. Don't need to ask anything.
Google and specially (Fire devices are sold at a loss more agressively than consoles) Amazon also sell their devices at a loss. Only Nintendo and Apple sell their hardware with big profit margins. But all of them, including Nintendo and Apple, have the store/platform costs I mentioned above.
MS tried to compete with their own mobile platform, with their own console platform, with their own game sub platform. In all cases doing something pretty similar to what others did before. Their competitors were way more successful because they prefered the other products and services vs the MS ones.
MS wanted to lock the game and apps sales on Windows to only their own store, but regulators stopped them. Because Windows was basically a monopoly, they have almost all the PC market. Not comparable with mobile, console or game subs markets, where the market share is spread across multiple big actors and none of them owns almost the whole market.
Obviously no company wants to give other company 30% of their game revenue. But they pay it for a reason: with that they pay the costs of platform/store related stuff (which are very expensive) and specially gives them access to a huge pool of users.
In the case of PC, most gamers are used to use Steam and don't like to have other storefronts and launchers. When a company like Epic, Ubisoft, EA (or Sony) make their own store and launcher they save to pay the 30% but in exchange their PC userbase gets way smaller if don't publish their games on Steam.
Nobody will go to your other store specially if there isn't enough appealing games there. Sony has now what, half a dozen games ported to PC? Even if adding a good chunk of 3rd party stuff there, most players who bought these games on PC wouldn't have bought them if they would have been exclusive of a Sony store. So at least for now, until they buy a big enough PC library, for Sony is better to pay the 30% to stablished PC stores. In addition to this, to implement PSN user integration on PC games and Discord integration on PSN to allow them having the friends and chat system multiplatform both inside and outside PC.
Once they have all this ready and also a big enough PC library, will make sense for Sony to release their own store and launcher but keep their games on other PC stores. And if the store grows enough, at some point to make their PC ports exclusives to their Sony PC store.
It would help Sony to have for all games published on PC cross-buy, cross-save, cross-play and a seamless transparent friends, trophies and chat system between PS and PC using their store for that as an advantage over the other PC stores. One PSN to rule them all. But in addition to that, to transition to leave other PC stores to their own PC platform step by step. And well, it requires a lot of time but also of work. So we'll have to be patient with this.
Nintendo Labo VR 2, now with stronger cardboard. I think Nintendo may end betting seriously on VR, but not soon. Right now the VR has still many challenges to face and areas to improve to become a mainstream, kids friendly device. Nintendo won't seriously jump to the VR wagon until several years after everything is ok in terms of health, costs, usability and generally mainstream friendly.Who knows, maybe the full-on Switch successor will be a Virtual Boy 2; I mean the Oculus Quest 2 is basically a good version of what the Virtual Boy wanted to be, and it doesn't matter if Nintendo wasn't the first to it because they weren't the first to the concept of a Switch-like device, either.
But hardcore Nintendo zealots will act as though the Meta Oculus Quest devices never existed anyway
Steam has over 80% of the PC market. MS already faced Windows related issues with regulators: from gaming store to web browser monopolistic issues.
Regulators wouldn't allow MS to buy Steam because it would give them basically the monopoly in PC gaming. And Valve is also very well positioned to own almost a monopoly on PC handhelds. While I think all regulators will let MS buy ABK, I think they wouldn't let them buy Valve.
I think there's a huge opportunity, if Steam OS continues improving and ends getting full compatibility and even better performance than Windows for games. And even more if they make it open and allow other storefronts there and allow other people via to allow improve it and make alternative versions via open source.
Can't remember right now when it was that MS tried to put a single (MS owned) store for a new Windows version but regulators forced them to don't do it. I'd bet it was when they were going to release Windows 8.
Not a good outlook for their flagship IP…
Did they already included the coop campaign?
Is this a Joke?
2013
- Killzone Shadow Fall
- Flower
- Resogun
- Knack
- Infamous Second Son
- Infamous First Light
- LittleBigPlanet 3
- Driveclub
- The Last of Us Remastered
- Entwined
- Bloodbourne
- The Order 1866
This is not an exhaustive list. They had a poor launch line up for sure, but to say they only had pretty much one game in two years is just dishonest.
P
peter42O
Guest
Via Open Critic, the overall average for Killzone, Resogun, Knack, Infamous Second Son, Infamous First Light, Driveclub, LBP 3, Entwined, Bloodborne, The Order: 1886 and Until Dawn was 74.5. Like I said, borderline good and if you subtract Bloodborne, it's even worse. And no im not counting PS3 remasters just to prop up the list. Come on man. That overall list is underwhelming and disappointing in my opinion.
Tell me you played none of those games without telling me that. Killzone, Infamous (both of them), Driveclub, Until Dawn and LBP3 are good games. I played them all. Your metric is "I checked opencritic and score is 70s, therefore bad", showing you played probably none of those games.
P
peter42O
Guest
Actually, I played and completed First Light and Until Dawn. Rated both a 7/10. Nothing special. Tried Second Son and wasn't into it at all. I did play Killzone Shadow Fall years later and even bought it digitally for $5 but it was bad. Uninstalled it after two hours or so. The other two were and still are of no interest to me.
Bottom line is that the PS4 lineup for the first two years was above average at best with the only major highlight being Bloodborne.
You claim that Halo Infinite is a great game while shitting on Killzone Shadow Fall? Damn
"Above average at best" so... they had more than 1 decent game. Gotcha.
If open critic mattered, Ryse Son of Rome would be above a 64 and Days Gone would be above a 72.
P
peter42O
Guest
You claim that Halo Infinite is a great game while shitting on Killzone Shadow Fall? Damn
"Above average at best" so... they had more than 1 decent game. Gotcha.
If open critic mattered, Ryse Son of Rome would be above a 64 and Days Gone would be above a 72.
Halo Infinite has far better gameplay and combat plus the grapple hook makes it even better. The core gunplay and shooting mechanics in Halo Infinite is far better than Killzone SF. It's not even close. Above average on my scale is a 6/10 bud. That's not good. lol
P
peter42O
Guest
Bloodborne was arguably last gens best exclusive.
It being apart of that lineup was a mega win.
I liked and like Killer Instinct.
I say liked and like because the launch game design and roster was better than the latter.
Original team was better basically. But overall good game.
Titanfall was good as well but didn't have long legs.
I liked Xbox Ones early games better until Bloodborne and it's been downhill since for Xbox IMO.
- Status