Xbox’s Spencer Sees Progress Toward Activision Deal Approval, says he expects that console exclusives are something "we're just going to see less"
- Thread starter John Elden Ring
- Start date
- Status
I agree it's convenient for customers, but it's a lot more convenient for certain customers specifically. Mainly, the ones who primarily game on the smallest of the gaming ecosystems. They're the ones seeing the most of the benefits.
And yeah of course it's always about money in the end with these companies, this is just an instance where that's the case being shown by Microsoft and they're using soft, friendly "pro-consumer" language to dress it up. Ongoing talks over the ABK deal are what are fueling this, they're essentially forced into this approach if they want this type of massive acquisition deal to be approved.
The thing with the Elden Ring deal, it actually isn't GamePass-related (Bandai-Namco would never probably allow that); it's more like you just get a free copy (you can choose Elden Ring among other games) when you buy a Series S. What's interesting is they're pushing this in August, and in territories like NA, where I'd assume Xbox are selling the best.
So either the numbers aren't looking right and they need a push, or they're afraid the numbers won't be looking right as Sony increases PS5 supply even further and big games like GOW Ragnarok start hitting in the Fall. So if MS are hoping to maximize Xbox Series sales in some of these territories, it's between now and November I would guess.
I do hope Sony are doing something with Arc; maybe with Sony's partnership with Disney-Marvel, they and Arc can work on a new Marvel-based fighting game. Arc System Works have already come out and said they would like to work with more licensed IP to expand their reach; Capcom probably isn't touching Marvel for a LONG time thanks to MvC: Infinite's failure, and the only other devs that could make a new Marvel at least as wild as Capcom's are Arc System Works and SNK, but SNK are squarely focused on their own IP like KOF, SamSho and Garou/Fatal Fury/Real Bout.
Also really hoping DokeV turns out super good, so much promise with that game especially since it's not an MMO or live-service title. Sony would be very dumb to not at least try investing into that talent as a majority shareholder if the game is shaping up well and they just need some more funding. Can't let opportunities like that slip by.
Thing is it always starts with "this benefits the niche/smaller games", that's how it gets set up. But the end goal is never to end there.
Like @IntentionalPun has been saying, cross-play in itself isn't an issue for gamers specifically. In theory it means we get to play with more people. The problem is moderation and security is not equal across platforms. Cheating is RAMPANT on PC and that can affect the console experience for console players. When companies like Microsoft force cross-play on games to generate large-enough pools to cut down on query times, that's a problem.
That's all aside the other things I was talking about :/
P
peter42O
Guest
Microsoft announces Lies of P in Game Pass day one yesterday and today, Phil says more bullshit. It's the LIES OF P(hil). LMAO!!!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I like Phil and he literally convinced Nadella to save and invest into Xbox but my God, I really wish he would stop with all this holier thou than crap. I believe that Phil is a good nice guy and actually wants all this to happen but it would only occur if every hardware manufacturer agreed to it and that's simply not going to happen. At least, not in my gaming lifetime.
I own Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 mainly for console exclusive games. If either were to never have any console exclusives, I no longer need that console or to spend money into that brand's eco-system. But whatever, I see it as nothing more than PR bullshit as Phil and Microsoft wants the ABK deal to go through.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I like Phil and he literally convinced Nadella to save and invest into Xbox but my God, I really wish he would stop with all this holier thou than crap. I believe that Phil is a good nice guy and actually wants all this to happen but it would only occur if every hardware manufacturer agreed to it and that's simply not going to happen. At least, not in my gaming lifetime.
I own Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 mainly for console exclusive games. If either were to never have any console exclusives, I no longer need that console or to spend money into that brand's eco-system. But whatever, I see it as nothing more than PR bullshit as Phil and Microsoft wants the ABK deal to go through.
Truth. See, this is something people on all the platforms can agree on. Why would they nab Lies of P (smart get for them, btw) for GamePass if they weren't expecting it to bring in more customers to the service and, knowing the goals and way the service is set up, possibly affect sales of the game on PlayStation platforms?
Theoretically everyone is still getting the game at the same time, that's true. But what if sales are so adversely affected, yet the money from the GamePass deal so good, that for a sequel the team just decide to prioritize GamePass and Xbox and skip PlayStation? Now that's a situation where some gamers are missing out. That's always a factor of what can happen with these deals because (IMO) I still think games being in services Day 1 has at least some type of depreciating effect on overall sales, even if just partially.
He's basically trying to frame the idea of exclusivity as a device-only concept in practice, when they are actively practicing exclusivity with their subscription service at the same time. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing: exclusives can be a great thing, actually, and I'm generally in favor of them. But practice what you preach, Phil
just downplaying their competitors biggest strength, their exclusives which microsoft has tried and failed at matching for over 2 generations
P
peter42O
Guest
Truth. See, this is something people on all the platforms can agree on. Why would they nab Lies of P (smart get for them, btw) for GamePass if they weren't expecting it to bring in more customers to the service and, knowing the goals and way the service is set up, possibly affect sales of the game on PlayStation platforms?
Theoretically everyone is still getting the game at the same time, that's true. But what if sales are so adversely affected, yet the money from the GamePass deal so good, that for a sequel the team just decide to prioritize GamePass and Xbox and skip PlayStation? Now that's a situation where some gamers are missing out. That's always a factor of what can happen with these deals because (IMO) I still think games being in services Day 1 has at least some type of depreciating effect on overall sales, even if just partially.
He's basically trying to frame the idea of exclusivity as a device-only concept in practice, when they are actively practicing exclusivity with their subscription service at the same time. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing: exclusives can be a great thing, actually, and I'm generally in favor of them. But practice what you preach, Phil
Exactly. Getting Lies of P day one on Game Pass is a great move because it's a genre that's hot right now, small studio that could easily use extra funds and shows that Microsoft is willing to work with foreign developers and publishers.
Your theory is a good one but thus far, hasn't happened yet. I see it to where as long as the publisher gets enough money upfront and a percentage of money based on downloads to offset the potential lost sales, I don't think it would affect anything on a major level. As long as the publisher is getting money, they don't care where it comes from or from who. On the other side, day one in a subscription service can also increase your sales because the consumer gets to play it first and if they like it, they may buy it. Overall, I think it evens out but also depends on each individual game. Take Saints Row for example. I think sales will be decent because there's just nothing new releasing until September but let's say it flops or if it was releasing later in the Fall, a Game Pass deal or even PlayStation Plus would greatly benefit the game especially since it can be played entirely in co-op.
I don't see having a game on Game Pass as being exclusive because you still need to invest into that brand, platform and eco-system and because it's still available on the other platform. Whenever Sony/Microsoft get a game into their subscription service day one, it of course would be "exclusive" to theirs because what would be the point in paying for that if your competition could do the exact same thing for the exact same game at the same exact time? There would be no benefit.
I'm 100% in favor of console exclusives but I agree with you in regards to Phil. Sometimes, the Microsoft guys including Phil should just keep quiet in my opinion.
Weve gone from industry loser begging for all games to be multiplatform to lies of P(hil) being GOTG. What a thread.
Why its not about console wars to me. Its about big corporation MS weaselling its way into gaming and then changing it under there terms.
And I don’t understand how actual gamers can cheer for them…
He can say whatever he wants... Sony and Nintendo will keep doing their thing and obliterating MS as they've been doing forever.
MS always have been the third (2nd if you don't count Nintendo), and always had a small market share. Their impact in the industry has been very limited.
Things like computer games, game consoles, motion based controls, game subs, backwards compatibility, cross-buy, cross-save, cloud gaming and company acquisitions existed before them. They didn't change anything.
Even the thing of publishing their own games only on their console while acquired subsidiaries ported their games to other consoles and PC is something Sony did with Psygnosis during the PS1. And Sega even did what I think MS will end doing in a generation or two: to go full multiplatform 3rd party.
The only very different and different thing MS did is being a console platform holder that put all their AAA games day one on PC and in a game sub, which btw is smaller than the game sub of their competitors, who won't do the same because their main business (which unlike MS they do in a very profitable way) is to sell games for their very successful consoles that have a way bigger userbase compared to Xbox.
Last edited:
True. I think MS is now flexing its money and actively trying to change the industry a bit ( subscription model being one of them )
No1 before has made acquisitions Microsoft is doing with Bethesda and Activision and the other studios and IP/s etc
That's a little silly of an argument. If a consumer can access the game, they can access a game. I can access a game on PS, Xbox, and PC.. well. it's a pretty available game from a consumer standpoint.He's basically trying to frame the idea of exclusivity as a device-only concept in practice, when they are actively practicing exclusivity with their subscription service at the same time. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing: exclusives can be a great thing, actually, and I'm generally in favor of them. But practice what you preach, Phil
Phil's doublespeak really just boils down to: MS is absolutely making games exclusive to Xbox and not releasing them on Playstation.
They have their "every game on PC" approach that they can always use to claim no device-exclusivity but it's pretty BS as the console space should be treated differently.
Their "gotcha/out" on it they repeat over and over Gamepass .. a total non-starter, but they say "Well we'd love to have this game on that platform if they let Gamepass on the platform" (which will never happen, and they know it.)
That's the shtick they are screaming about for regulators ears.. and it's an excuse that is BS, but will probably work.
It's also tricking a lot of people into thinking MS is going to keep everyone multi-plat... I wouldn't buy that for a second. After contracts are up, expect MS to seriously consider making all Acti-Bliz games Xbox + PC exclusive with them repeating the "Well it's also on Gamepass anyone w/ a phone can get it via xCloud, and gee we wish Sony/Nintendo would let us launch there."
Yes, they saw they aren't able to compete with Sony and Nintendo games by themselves so they tried to buy that success/popularity/revenue/profitability. Bethesda and Activision have some very popular games, but they represent a tiny portion of the market.
Even if would turn all their future games console exclusive, that wouldn't change the console wars a bit. This is why they won't make (at least their biggest existing franchises) them exclusive. And since they won't be exclusive the change will be smaller.
What many people don't see, even if MS/Phil said it many times is that they don't bought these companies to make them exclusive, but instead to secure their content for GP.
MS thought they can compete with Sony and Nintendo selling games and consoles so will try to do their "Netflix of the videogames" hoping that as happened in music and cinema the market moves to subscriptions and that one big sub will dominate the market.
Well, so far the market didn't change a shit, and almost $100B in acquisitions later Sony and Nintendo even continue having more successful (and profitable) game subs.
MS absolutely had decent market share during the 360 period.. like not even sure how you can ignore that.
Beyond that they've impacted the industry; XBL being the first paid online service of it's type to become successful, and other's followed suit.
They also were the first to focus on getting a lot of indie games, by creating their "Arcade" deal where there was a lot less friction for indies (less costs). Sony also followed suit and clearly DIRECTLY targeted this during the PS4 launch, as MS had disgruntled some indies with their dickish moves on XBLA releases. Without XBLA there's a really good chance the industry would still be in the "No you have to pay $50k to even think about developing on our hardware" attitude.
The story of Xbox is that they really squandered something that was growing / competing / was differentiated from the competitors.. to say they never had an impact or influence or decent market share is just pretty false.
Yes, it does affect “certain customers”. That being customers of games that are less popular, on all platforms.
Cross play is a convenience in a game like Fortnite or Call of Duty on any platform. Cross play is a necessity for a game like Evil Dead on any platform.
Also you’re putting too much weight on this behind the ActivisionBlizzard purchase. MS has been singing this tune for years and years.
Well... Wii, PS3, DS and PSP were there.
360 had a good start because PS3 debuted almost 2 years after 360 on the biggest PS market, it was too fucking expensive and had many issues more and with Sony also busy with its portable, but as usual MS ended third. It also did help to MS that due to rising costs every generation, many big publishers needed to go multi to grow their revenue, so Xbox received many big IPs that until then were exclusive to other consoles. And well,, that generation also saw the most successful Nintendo and Sony portables ever so could also be included in the market share.
Sony had their weakest gen regarding home consoles specially with that awful start, but if we also count their portable the generation wasn't that bad at all for them.
Just because someone is "in 3rd" doesn't mean they didn't have significant market share. We aren't talking about handing out a Gold medal and everyone ignoring the Bronze finisher who was only a second slower.
To say they had a small market share is just ludicrous.
P
peter42O
Guest
It's not tricking me. I have said since the ABK deal was announced in January that once contracts are done, im expecting every game to be exclusive to Xbox/PC/Cloud.
It's not tricking me. I have said since the ABK deal was announced in January that once contracts are done, im expecting every game to be exclusive to Xbox/PC/Cloud.
Yep, thats what i keep trying to tell my fellow sony stans. Jim Ryan will be the one who is equipped to go toe to toe with Microsoft right now with the moves they’re making. They need a business forward person thinking about long term, Jim knows they don’t stand a chance if they dont start knocking out some successful service games and increasing their wingspan of their IP beyond the console.
Microsoft is slowly going to eat away at every other market if Sony don’t play this generation smart. They need big multiplayer, they need PC presence, and they need to utilize their power in multimedia entertainment to grow their IP.
This stuff sounds boring and anti-gamer to fans but its whats gonna keep sony in the position they’re in. It’s clear what Microsoft is doing and they’re underestimating Sony right now because they aren’t a big tech company, but they still have more influence and they need to utilize it while they can.
If you hate the direction Sony is going in now you’re gonna be absolutely over it once Microsoft starts gaining leverage over them and dictates even more of how they do business
According to their wikipedia pages:
DS 154.02M
Wii 101.63M
PS3 87.4M
Xbox 360 84M
PSP 80-82M (let's say 81M)
Total including portables: 508.05M, 360 is 16.53% of that
Total only including home consoles: 273.03M, 360 is 30.76% of that
Only counting PS vs XB total is 252.4M, 360 is 33.28% of that
Only counting PS3 vs 360 total is 171.4M, 360 is 49% of that
Counting all types of consoles they had a very small market share (and would be even way smaller if including PC and mobile). If you only compare PS3 vs 360 then yes, they had a big market share, the best they ever had.
- Status