To be fair we didn't get GTA6 because GTA5 kept selling at a ridiculous clip due to GTA Online.
No point for Rockstar to make GTA6 in that case.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Business Insider] "With the next Xbox, Microsoft has a 4-part strategy to end the console wars once and for all"
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
To be fair we didn't get GTA6 because GTA5 kept selling at a ridiculous clip due to GTA Online.
No point for Rockstar to make GTA6 in that case.
No, it's actually quite clear that he means 2020 and 2021.
Matt Booty: "As our content comes out over the next year, two years, all of our games, sort of like PC, will play up and down that family of devices," Booty explains. "We want to make sure that if someone invests in Xbox between now and (Series X) that they feel that they made a good investment and that we're committed to them with content."
1. "Over the next year" is very straightforward. I don't know any English speaker who would say "over the next year" to mean "starting one year from now."
2. He specifically calls out people who "invest in Xbox between now and Series X," which by definition has to be 2020.
In general the whole statement just seems to be aimed more at reassuring Xbox One owners/potential late adopters. In the past "Xbox never supports their systems late in the gen" was considered a relevant criticism. Now, somehow people have turned this statement into "Xbox will never make next gen games!!!"
Last edited:
While I admire what MS did with the Xbox one X, gamepass, and from the sound of it the xbxs is powerful.... there's something to be said of the success of the PS 4 and Switch - I'm not convinced there's a need to reinvent the wheel, traditional console model still works fine? I do agree that with rising game development costs putting games on pc, mobile is probably inevitable.
That idea is almost dead, the next generation will either be the last or next to last full on generation.
In ten years you will be able make a 100Tflop console which will already be enough for photorealistic graphics. You aren't going to get much difference from going from 100Tflops to 500 TFLOPS for a game console. Once we get past around 50Tflop GPUs nothing is really going to matter except the games, platform, and services. The hardware will become virtually irrelevant much in the way it has for music, video, office programs, etc. video games are literally one of the last major media forms that's limited by the constraints of the hardware and very soon hardware will catch up across the board to where your phone will be able to render photorealistic graphics.
Fair enough. Never saw the actual quote before. Music to my ears.
Thanks.
I think people are underestimating PlayStation strategy too. PS4 was a huge change for them hardware and architecture wise that set them up for easier backwards compatibility across generations (something they've never really been able to do without including extra hardware in the box).
It would be insane for Sony not to have the same ecosystem strategy going forward with a "family" of devices. The only difference is they have generational exclusives. Sony is not going to stop selling the PS4 once the PS5 hits.
They're going to market both at different price points and the PlayStation ecosystem. Buy in at a lower price with PS4, enjoy a ton of cross generation 3rd party titles and indie games to build up your library (lock you in) and then upgrade to a PS5 when the price is right for you. Same with PS5 Pro and PS6. It's all about pricing tiers and the ecosystem/your library of games.
It would be insane for Sony not to have the same ecosystem strategy going forward with a "family" of devices. The only difference is they have generational exclusives. Sony is not going to stop selling the PS4 once the PS5 hits.
They're going to market both at different price points and the PlayStation ecosystem. Buy in at a lower price with PS4, enjoy a ton of cross generation 3rd party titles and indie games to build up your library (lock you in) and then upgrade to a PS5 when the price is right for you. Same with PS5 Pro and PS6. It's all about pricing tiers and the ecosystem/your library of games.
Is it really considered "wildly successful" if they gave it away for 1 dollar? How many of those people would continue at regular price.
Lots of concern trolling and gatekeeping tbh "muh videogames won't be as advanced now" is some tiring argument.
Some next gen games will obviously have minimum requirements like a X1X and eventually a series X when a new model is announced if they are SO ADVANCED (every generation people expect to open console boxes and find iron man suits i swear) and it's good business AND good consumer move to include as many people as possible.
But then again people have meltdowns when exclusive games get announced for multiplatform release so... yeah.
Some next gen games will obviously have minimum requirements like a X1X and eventually a series X when a new model is announced if they are SO ADVANCED (every generation people expect to open console boxes and find iron man suits i swear) and it's good business AND good consumer move to include as many people as possible.
But then again people have meltdowns when exclusive games get announced for multiplatform release so... yeah.
Well people are maxing it out via Gold subs so they are willing to spend 40 bucks times three plus a dollar, 120 bucks or so for three years which true isn't close to the full whack it would cost but time will tell.
There was a time when Spotify and Netflix were generous but then you kinda just accept the standard offer because it's good value and you enjoy it.
He wasn't unspecific at all. He said "As our content comes out over the next year, two years, all of our games, sort of like PC, will play up and down that family of devices"
I've never heard anyone use the term "over the next year" to refer to a period that begins a year after the conversion.
The talk of first party games being supported on X1 does not include third party multiplatform stuff, obviously. And programming has nothing to do with it. The crux would be around game design. Designers at MS first party studios already have plenty of experience scaling their games for PC's and it won't need to be much different for early gen stuff here. Design a next gen game around no loading screens by utilizing the SSD, but have loading screens in X1 version and/or hidden load areas like elevators or tall hills or cliffs to climb or passages to squeeze through, etc. Run the game at 60fps for XSX but 30fps for X1 to cut down on physics engine and AI computations. Reduce amount of stuff on screen to help with AI/physics/draw calls. There are lots of ideas that are common knowledge to designers at this point for wrestling with exactly this type of concern.
Also, we still dunno the actual meaning of what Booty even said. What games are we even thinking about needing these considations? We know Halo isn't getting held back, and rumors suggest Forza won't be either and those might be the 1-2 titles Booty was covering in his comment about exceptions. But think about what other studios are doing...they are releasing stuff like Grounded, Wasteland 3, Psychonauts 3, Bleeding Edge, SoT, Minecraft...or they are working on games a bit further out like Hellblade 2 and Fable and probably another Gears game and Initiative's first game. Booty's comments might well have been about the former and not the latter; i.e. games that are built for X1 also running great on XSX.
Maybe something from Compulsion along with Everwild would be plausible candidates for stuff we know is coming to XSX. I also don't see Sony's studios as having a ton of content ready for year 1 either due to how many major games they also released or are set to release in the 2019-2020 window, some of which seemingly are coming to PC anyhow.
Last edited:
He might have meant through year end 2021, which is 2 yrs from his interview but a year on from launch...? Just a thought.
Nah just want to play the odd exclusive here and there on Xbox but don't want 2 consoles. I might get a PC though.
You're getting granular. The model, regardless of content specificity, isn't hugely profitable.
What he said was every game released by MS from then [nov 2019] until a year or two afterward will play across the family of devices.
Since XSX releases holiday 2020, that means upto 1 year without a next gen exclusive from MS.
So yes it could mean we don't see a MS next gen exclusive until holiday 2021, but that's the absolute latest.
Yup, I agree with that interpretation as it seems obvious. I think the narrative around Booty's comments presume he was talking about games for first 2 yrs of XSX with no exceptions to show off the hardware and looking at the transition through more traditional precedents. I think that caused a lot of potential concern that might be based on nothing material. If ya consider the studios and their recent/upcoming projects it looks to me like almost none of them would even be candidates for next gen exclusive stuff during that time frame in the first place! Compulsion's next game and Everwild being likely applications of what he said imho. Exceptions in terms of really showing off the hardware and requiring more design work to cover the power gap being Halo and probably Forza. Hell, the first year of the timeframe his statement covers can't possibly even refer to next gen exclusives anyhow as the XSX probably won't even launch until the very end of 'over the next year'. Klobrille would probably be positioned to hear more on that though so maybe I'm wrong.
Much ado about nothing imho.
I can't get around the not owning my games being good part for the industry part.
Since when does dictating from the bottom work anyway?
Ie gamepass can't work unless it's on the industry leaders machine.
Last edited:
Who said you couldn't own games? Since when is an option for someone else imposing on you? Not everything needs to be about you.
If something like this is successful enough that is where it's going.
I feel like we went through this at the start of this gen but EULA's often mean ya don't have total rights of ownership to the games ya buy physical anyhow. And I dunno why you presume Game Pass can't work without being on an industry leader's machine. PlayStation is not magically the defacto market leader next gen. They will have to earn that and it is absolutely possible they don't end up being the market leader next time. If MS gets Game Pass via xCloud on Nintendo's machines + PC + phones + last gen Xbox + next gen Xbox...that is a dominant portion of the market for MS and devs to gain access to through the same portal. I'm sure MS will try to get Sony to let it show up on their platforms too, but not sure Sony would play ball. Regardless, it isn't like MS/devs can't access PS5 owners anyhow. Those same gamers certainly have phones and PC's that I bet xCloud will be able to work on.
I do actually agree with you w.r.t. the industry def moving towards a digital-only future though. I am happy it is moving there though, personally. Then again, I'm not real hung up on the issue of ownership like many others are.
Kinda like how movie rentals eliminated the ability to own movies...
Music rentals eliminated the ability to own music.
Car rentals eliminated the ability to own vehicles
Property rentals eliminated the ability to own homes
Equipment rentals eliminated the ability to own tools
There's literally nothing in history to support your "slippery slope" argument that a game rental service is a threat to ownership.
The fact of the matter is, rentals services provide those who want it, a reduced barrier to access... ownership isnt an inherently superior option and having more options is inherently better than having fewer. I'm sure you've come across plenty of things in life that you would like to use or try without taking it over as a personal asset. Why should digital games be aany different?
Last edited:
I absolutely disagree. If it wasnt, you wouldn't see content creators yanking their content and spinning up their own distribution methods. Netflix's problem is they they were reliant on other content providers to allow them to host their content on the service for cheap. Similar to the early stages of PS Plus, Games with Gold and now GamePass. In the short term it makes sense while content providers work on making their own store fronts and subs. At which time they will yank their content and place it in their own ecosystems ala Epic game store and Ubisoft.
Its literally already happening.
He/she can speak for themselves, but I *think* their concern is that it won't merely be one option among many but rather that digital will be the only option, and they perceive a digital-only future as representing one where nobody owns the games.
Ah. Well that's an entirely different argument. One that goes well beyond gaming since gaming is actually lagging in this area.
Microsoft still sells games though... that is not the 'Netflix model'
It's probably much more sustainable for MS than Netflix because it guides users towards additional revenue streams (dlc and full game purchases, MP service subscriptions and to a lesser degree, peripheral sales)
Last edited:
I agree with him/her about gaming going to digital-only future, but I don't have any concerns at all about that. In my view, the only real significant drawback there is tied to local storage space, but at some point cloud streaming will be good enough that that won't matter anyhow. Also, at some point cloud platform holders can just upgrade their server farm hardware and remove any need to rely on a console in the first place. MS seems to be prepping for that future. I also wonder how console subsidization fits into things. I wonder if they will really push it this time around to moreso tie into the cell phone style strategy.
Being able to market an XSX for $35/month for 2 yrs or something along those lines could be super compelling when pitched alongside Game Pass and xCloud and XBL Gold included. Let ppl add/remove services if they like to give em more options even, just like cell plans do. It is almost an overwhelming sales pitch imho. Drop $35 and you get what might be the most powerful next gen console, access to really impressive BC and cross play and cross saves, access to hundreds of games from the get go with some big hitter launch titles there too, multiplayer + GWG deals, maybe some early access privileges, and then extend that over to PC or X1 or your phone using xCloud...
It's a simple thing to market too, despite all its moving parts, because it is so similar (the subsidization model I mean) to cell phones which everyone understands by now.
Hmm. Actually, come to think of it, would this erase Sony's console exclusive (meaning also on PC) wins? For example, would MS put just Xbox games on xCloud or might they also open that up to GFW? If PC games can be streamed via xCloud, someone could play stuff like Shenmue 3 or other games on Sony/PC platforms right from their Xbox console (or phone, etc).
The original Netflix model is not sustainable.
Netflix was build on the back of being a distributor offering a wide variety of older content for low prices as they were not generating much revenue and then money hatting a select few larger titles over time.
Overtime content makers either
A: Demanded more money, or
B: Made their own store fronts ala Stars and Disney.
This leaves the "Netflix" content distributor in the position of needed to generate their own content which is exactly what MS is doing as we see Epic, EA Access, and Ubisoft UPlay all move to create their own services and store fronts.
This is all true but, unlike Netflix, Microsoft's business (neither EAs, Epic's, nor Ubi's) isn't totally reliant on providing subscribers with a large pool of first and third party content. Gamepass is just a part of their business and serves to support other aspects of their business that offer better margins.
Microsoft's Gaming division is absolutely dependent on providing large pools of content for their users. Its true their business is more like Amazon's videos model than Netflix; however I'm not the one claiming Microsoft is the Netflix of Gaming. The point being is that GamePass having extensive third party content long term isn't a business reality and we've seen this multiple times already to the point where the same things are happening in the game industry as we speak.
Then there is no point of different consoles if any game is on any platform.
Bingo, 10 years from now consoles will be more like cellphones in terms of comparing specs. That is to say 99% of the population doesn't care and they expect the majority of third party games to be on all platforms:
I said Microsoft's business isnt reliant on providing this content to SUBSCRIBERS - this is what gamepass does. But, Microsoft's also sells games, sells publishers access to walled-gardened customers, sells peripherals, sells and online MP services sells advertisements, and skims off of DLC sales. Gamepass exists to help them bolster all these other areas.
Gamepass probably stands to have an extensive 3rd party content for a longtime coming, because unlike movie studios, most publishers don't put out enough content to offer a compelling independant service. Also, many small devs view gamepass as investment security on the front end. And it helps 3rd parties combat used game sales as sales dwindle.
Call me crazy, but I like MS, Sony, and Nintendo all having different strategies. Gives me reasons to own all of them. Nintendo is playing the unique hybrid console card and the Nintendo IPs as always. Sony is sticking with normal generations and have amazing exclusives that will probably perform amazing on PS5. And MS is going more software and system based and Game Pass is such a genius and amazing service.
Pretty much. They're ending console wars in the same sense Switzerland ended WWII.
Microsoft is dependent on the GamePass model because it's driving expansion of its other business revenues. Without this strategic content model helping to drive growth I doubt MS would even have stayed in the console market.
Further the video game industry is even more reliant on game publishers than film. I challenge you to name a recent top selling game that wasn't from a major publisher. Small devs are happy to work with MS as a publisher but actually publishers like EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Bethesda will just make their own store fronts in the long term.
It's impossible to say what MS should have done without gamepass. What we do know is that platform holders can and do survive without this type of offering. Gamepass bolsters these other sources of revenues ... but it isn't the only way to bolster these other sources of revenue, as other platforms readily demonstrate.
Now we're getting into separate arguments.
1) Whether or not The industry being publisher reliant doesn't change thre fact that most publishers don't produce enough content to sustain their own services.
2) When did this become just about top selling games? I thought we were talking about 3rd parties supporting gamepass with content. But yes typically the top selling games come from larger publishers. Still there are plenty of publishers who don't release enough games to sustain a subscription service. The ones who have services now have multiple annualized franchises. To answer your question, the biggest indie top sellers this gen have probably been Rocket League, Roblox, and the Witcher if I had to guess.
3) yeah, I'm sure other publishers will have their own services. Still there aren't many that produce enough content to offer a compelling service. Not to mention, those that Do produce enough content, still offer games on Gamepass. Even EA and UBISOFT, who have their own services, still support gamepass...
Publishers like Bandai-Namco, Capcom, Konami, CDProjectRed won't snub gamepass for their own services.
Last edited:
It's not two different arguments, you're judging the viability of smaller publishers like based on their annual output while completely ignoring their decades of existing content which would come to their independent services. At no point am I saying that none of their games would be on GamePass but at the same time for publishers who have decades of IP and games it's makes more financial sense because there is an obvious threshold where the revenue gained from placing content a subscription service versus creating the service and yourself comes into play. The point I was making with we have the developer, publisher/distributor, platform model. In recent times, the platform holder has become the distributor though digital stores, however if the publisher can afford to shift distribution in house they will.
I'm not even sure we are disagreeing other than the speed and extent to which it will occur and that's something I don't think anyone could know at this point.
Software rentals pioneered by Adobe eliminated the ability to own the any of their large range of industry-standard applications. They even now purchase leading softwares in other fields, and convert them to their "eternal subscription-only never buy to own" business model.
You could say that in many cities, property rentals have indeed eliminated the ability for a regular non-millionaire person to own a home.
That doesn't really make sense though, it's pretty obvious MS wont be releasing any Xbox Series X exclusives from the time that interview took place until the actual launch of the console. Why would he count that time period in a statement about next-gen exclusives?
A MS product getting bigger hype from mostly USA news outlets vs a Japanese brand? I'm shocked!
Why do people in this thread keep posting this baseless conspiracy theory and making sweeping generalisations about the press?
Well, it wasnt a statement about next gen exclusives.
It was about Microsoft releases in general and how they are approaching the transition period.
Last edited: