JohnnyMoses

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,680
I am one of Sony's biggest fans. I hated MS's focus on Kinect and TV, but bought the X1 at launch for two reasons:
1) I could afford it
2) It had a better launch lineup and had releasing Titanfall right around the corner. KZ Shadowfall was a disappointment and knack was trash and while i ended up hating Ryse, i still respected the production values and their ambition on the narrative front. Cant say the same about knack which was basically a budget game.

I loved Titanfall. Sunset was my GOTY in 2014. I liked both much more than Sony's two exclusives that year, Infamous and DriveClub. Both Sony and MS had weak years, but i was more or less content with their output knowing Halo, Fable, Quantum Break, Coalition's New IP, and Kamiya's games were on the horizon. There were rumors of them partnering with Obsidian for a next gen RPG which kept me from selling the console after a weak 2015 where Halo 5 ended up being a disappointment and nothing else was released.

Instead, Phill cancelled Kamiya's game he had advertised in three trade shows. He cancelled Coalition's new IP he had advertised at the console's first E3. Then he spent a $100 million buying rights to a dead franchise and forced these guys to make it. He then shutdown Lionhead studios and cancelled the fable game he had advertised for two years. Then cancelled the Obsidian game he never revealed. Since 2014, i have only played halo 5, gears and quantum break on my x1. Both ok games, nothing special. Gears was so boring i couldnt finish the first two levels. it feels like a game from 2006. Thats three games in three years.

Now my X1 is worth $65. I cant even trade it in towards an X1X because it would only get me a $100 and cost another $400. My launch X1 doesnt have HDR support unlike the launch PS4s. It has no games i want to play. Sea of thieves and Crackdown look unremarkable and ugly. say what you will about Sony games, but they bring their A game when it comes to graphics. SOTC looks stunning. So do Detroit, Spiderman, and God of War.

When i bought the X1 at launch, i looked at Ryse and thought this shit looks next gen and hoped MS would eventually release the sequel with great gameplay. Instead the cut ties with Crytek. they wasted millions keeping tomb raider off playstation instead of investing that cash in Nioh, Nier, Persona and Yakuza to make sure they appeared on their console. It's bizarre to me that those games are exclusives when Sony didnt appear to have any funding invested in the development of those games. They couldnt spend a few million publishing and distributing these excellent games?

Switch's success boggles my mind, but at the end of the day, its rather simple. Exclusives sell consoles. MS spent billions on acquiring minecraft instead of spending a few hundred million acquiring all the failed studios this gen. say what you will about Don Matrick but hes the one who stepped in to help EA fund Titanfall when it went over budget. He is the one who signed Insomniac to make Sunset. he greenlit Coalition's new IP. Phill came in and spent millions keeping Titanfall off PS4 forever, cancelled new IPs, didnt sign Insomniac to make a sequel or a new IP and shut down studios.

He might have had a big hand in removing kinect requirements but he has been really bad for exclusives.

While I can't confirm any of your financial statistics, and I have completely opposite gaming views (loved Knack, Gears 4, hated Titanfall 1, loved Sunset though), this is a great post.
 

Liquidsnake

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,002
I think they're pretty much fucked. Their first party is weak, The XBOX just came out, and for five hundred dollars. Sony is going to release a PS5 for four hundred dollars which is massively better holiday '20, and MS can't ship a next-gen system any where near that soon without burning the X owners.

Valve would never sell to anyone, let alone MS. MS buying EA makes no sense to me, as all the Sports licenses require multiplatform releases.

They're going to get slaughtered.

This post bothered me all weekend, it suggest that MS can't take part in a next gen console, because its going to burn current x owners?
#1 how is that different from Sony's dilemma with the pro? And the answer is really not important.

I don't like your insinuation that MS has painted themselves into a corner. And now cant participate in next gen. This argument is really a bad one. And it shows some real bias. MS is supposed to close up shop now for 5 years because they released a mid gen refresh? Please explain? Those who bought an X are the hardcore, not the whole base. I would not feel burned if in 2 years they announced the release of the next gen Xbox.

What are you talking about?
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
No, they would not.

Lets say it's 100 dollars a year, you obviously have to pay all the other publishers you're featuring, so maybe Sony take twenty percent of that, they get 20 dollars a year, and they have to make profit on all their first party published titles? They probably spend around four hundred million a year on first party software development and marketing, You'd need twenty million subscribers just to break even, and you're not going to get it. Let alone actually make money on those projects. You're not even going to have that install base for the first year and a half, let alone a one hundred percent attach rate. They haven't even got half the PS4 audience on PS+.

First. How I understand Game Pass works (which is similar to Netflix), they (Sony/MS) pay the publisher to have their game on the service for X amount of dollars for X amount of time. It's not "if you have X amount of subscribers, I get X amount of money".
Second. A lot of games have DLC/MTX, where most of the high-margin profit comes from these days from MS/Sony.
Third. Why would you not get 20 or 30 million subscribers? If you offered all of your games plus some third party games for a cheap price monthly...yea, you would.
Fourth. You still sell traditionally as not all games would be on Game Pass.
Fifth. The numbers work, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have tried it in the first place.
Sixth. Let's not act like Netflix doesn't exist

So many words to suggest I don't understand the situation or I'm old fashioned. We can see the situation just fine. We still need these amazing business plans to be proven on how exactly MS will grow their gaming services and so far nothing about Play Anywhere is enticing the PC side besides the Xbox exclusives they can't get otherwise.


360 and Xbox One games running on the PC is a very limited library with so many of those games already on PC. Where's all this demand for the 360 and XB1 library on the PC anyway? We already got all Xbox exclusives going forward on PC.

Then you say streaming services with Game Pass will help nullify console sales, but we haven't seen this work so far. Sony used to let you game on Samsung TVs without a PC or console, but they have since discontinued it, maybe because Samsung wasn't getting anything out of the deal or it just wasn't popular. Either way it suggests so far this isn't going to be an automatic success like you make it sound.

We'll have to see, but so far these ideas have been tried in some ways and don't guarantee MS has a solid solution to growth in gaming profits outside of consoles.

1. The 360 and XBO games on PC...under a $10/mo subscription is way more valuable than having to buy each of those games piecemeal. You don't have ALL Xbox exclusives on PC (yet) but it doesn't matter, it's what you get with what you pay.

2. PS Now doesn't work because the tech doesn't work (and really, who wants to wait in line in order to play a game...).

3. I never stated that it will be a success when it comes out...just as Game Pass wasn't some big success in the gaming realm (though MS said it did do better than expected) but to ignore that that is the future is just like denying that digital will take over physical sales, which is slowly but surely is. It's just easy to realize why they are going the way that they are and that there are different measurements of success than the same old same old.
 

GamerDude

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,313
it's an estimate. MS stopped giving out the sales so we can only guess. PS4 is 70 something million and I think 30 something was the last reported number so 30-50 is a reasonable guess even if it isn't quite specific.

30 to 50 million is not a reasonable range at all. It's hilariously waaaaay too broad to be of any use. The whole point is that they don't need to guess; information that has been released by sources other than Microsoft, makes it clear that the range is 35 to 40 million.
 

Shpeshal Nick

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,856
Melbourne, Australia
The PS3 had a lot of negativity at its start. More expensive, underperforming multiplatform games, "no games meme", "X will save PS3 whiteboard" etc.

Yet somehow Sony managed to make a turnaround, partly due to great exclusives. Microsoft already did some great moves like BC and Game Pass but they need the more exclusive content to win over the people.

Sony had a far bigger existing fan base to tap into to help turn it around. One Xbox doesn't have.
 

TuMekeNZ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,278
Auckland, New Zealand
Microsoft is not going to give up on hardware especially after the heavy investment and the launch payoff of the Xbox One X. If anything this shows a commitment to not make the same mistakes next gen as they did at the start of this gen.
100% agree. If they were going to bin the hardware business they would've just let the S run it's course and be done with it.
To me the X shows the direction future consoles will take with more thoughtful design that makes the most of the hardware available, packaged in a good looking box.
 

kappa_krey

Banned
Jan 24, 2018
630
Few questions for you guys (you know who you are so I'm not quoting all of you)

  • Why does having games on the PC devalue Xbox consoles? Please elaborate with something more than ("because then it has no exclusives")
  • Does having Kindle apps on non Kindle devices devalue Amazon's bookstore?
  • Do you believe you'll have more or less games on the PlayStation console long run if Microsoft exits gaming?
  • Do you believe PlayStation will offer a better or worse value to gamers once Microsoft exits gaming?
  • If ecosystem and features isn't the most vital aspect of the major platform holders, why is Steam so dominant and beloved?
Even if you never plan on buying a Xbox for the rest of your lifetime, I think many of you are being naive and detrimental to your gaming hobby with your rooting interests and what you hope to be true regarding death of Xbox.

It really is something, isn't it? One thing to feel MS could be doing more regarding things like 1st party exclusives or what-have-you, but the fanboyism and blatant simple-minded tribalism some people seem to engage in over (essentially) heaps of plastic and silicone is mind-boggling.

MS leaving the industry would have a detrimental effect, it doesn't matter who you are, and their efforts have also helped pushed Sony and Nintendo to where they are today, so anyone who's a real fan of either of those other corporations (and that's all they are: corporations. These guys are not your friends or lovers like some fanboys seem disillusioned into thinking) would at least respect MS enough to not want the Xbox division to simply die off.
 

Liquidsnake

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,002
It really is something, isn't it? One thing to feel MS could be doing more regarding things like 1st party exclusives or what-have-you, but the fanboyism and blatant simple-minded tribalism some people seem to engage in over (essentially) heaps of plastic and silicone is mind-boggling.

MS leaving the industry would have a detrimental effect, it doesn't matter who you are, and their efforts have also helped pushed Sony and Nintendo to where they are today, so anyone who's a real fan of either of those other corporations (and that's all they are: corporations. These guys are not your friends or lovers like some fanboys seem disillusioned into thinking) would at least respect MS enough to not want the Xbox division to simply die off.

Please see my post above, its really baffling to me. I just dont get it.
 

Deleted member 31133

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 5, 2017
4,155
Another doom story?
I give between 30 and 50% chance of clicking the article..


Oh nice!
Probably first time in my life I see this comment. Such foresight...
Until then though, xbox not only exists but also happens to be the most capable console on the market..
Insignificant details, I know...

Maybe I'll be wrong. Hope I am because I don't want them to go into an all service and no console.

The next Xbox is already in development. There was a code name leaked some time ago.

Looks like my prediction is way out.
 

New Fang

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,542
People are still floating this narrative that Xbox hardware is going away? Amazing. They just shipped new hardware two holidays in a row.
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
First. How I understand Game Pass works (which is similar to Netflix), they (Sony/MS) pay the publisher to have their game on the service for X amount of dollars for X amount of time. It's not "if you have X amount of subscribers, I get X amount of money".
Second. A lot of games have DLC/MTX, where most of the high-margin profit comes from these days from MS/Sony.
Third. Why would you not get 20 or 30 million subscribers? If you offered all of your games plus some third party games for a cheap price monthly...yea, you would.
Fourth. You still sell traditionally as not all games would be on Game Pass.
Fifth. The numbers work, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have tried it in the first place.
Sixth. Let's not act like Netflix doesn't exist
1, I didn't mean literally. But you have to pay all the content providers. And it's not going to be cheap. If a fifth of the games on the service are Sony's, I would imagine they'll get around a fifth of the cash. More obviously for running it, but I was generalising.

2, Not a lot of Sony's games, no. Hence why I said they won't do it. Many of Sony's service games are already free.

3, More subscribers than users? Why won't they? Seriously?

4, True, but who's going to buy them? Why would you spent three hundred dollars on Sony games you got with your yearly pass?

5, MS is not in the same situation that Sony is, that was my entire point. Their first party slate makes this model massively more viable for them than it would be for Sony.

6, Netflix has around 120 million subscribers, and it's around twenty billion dollars in debt. It couldn't be a more different situation.
 
Feb 1, 2018
5,083
Given the direction that a lot of their products are going, along with the attitudes of their new CEO, + their unfortunate 2nd (soon 3rd?) place sales position in the industry....I fully expect Microsoft to shift the Xbox brand away from console hardware and transform it into a full Steam-style service for Windows devices. This way, they'll give up the losing battle with Sony and Nintendo and instead chase after the PC gamer market which they already have a foothold on with their OS.

They'll still make accessories like controllers and headsets and such- maybe even an xbox-branded KBM too. Perhaps they'll make one more console for next gen (it won't have an optical drive- digital only) and then they'll fully go into whatever their "new vision" for gaming is i.e just make it a service like all their other bread and butter IP's (Windows, Office, etc)

This also gives their PR department great ammo so instead of the media perceiving it as Xbox "giving up" it's Xbox "evolving"
 
Last edited:

Mass Effect

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 31, 2017
16,987
lol that range "30 to 50 million." What was the author thinking with that one?

At least we know how much the Xbox is at thanks to Zhuge. 35 million.

The PS3 had a lot of negativity at its start. More expensive, underperforming multiplatform games, "no games meme", "X will save PS3 whiteboard" etc.

Yet somehow Sony managed to make a turnaround, partly due to great exclusives. Microsoft already did some great moves like BC and Game Pass but they need the more exclusive content to win over the people.

But mostly due to their international brand appeal, something that Xbox doesn't have.

But at the same time, Microsoft has turned things around in their own way, at least in their strong territories. They've doubled down on their existing core base, and those Xbox fans have been buying more games, services, and hardware than ever. So that's good for MS.

They won't catch up in raw sales numbers, though. They just don't have the markets for that.

Sony never caught this much garbage for giant scorpions or the $599.

Man, I thought I'd only see this kind of revisionist history in politics.
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
1, I didn't mean literally. But you have to pay all the content providers. And it's not going to be cheap. If a fifth of the games on the service are Sony's, I would imagine they'll get around a fifth of the cash. More obviously for running it, but I was generalising.

2, Not a lot of Sony's games, no. Hence why I said they won't do it. Many of Sony's service games are already free.

3, More subscribers than users? Why won't they? Seriously?

4, True, but who's going to buy them? Why would you spent three hundred dollars on Sony games you got with your yearly pass?

5, MS is not in the same situation that Sony is, that was my entire point. Their first party slate makes this model massively more viable for them than it would be for Sony.

6, Netflix has around 120 million subscribers, and it's around twenty billion dollars in debt. It couldn't be a more different situation.

I'm just going to say that you contradicted yourself in 3 and 4...you say that they can't get 20/30 million users but then say who's going to buy traditionally if they can get all of Sony games with a yearly pass. That literally makes no sense. Game Pass isn't an Xbox only exclusive system. They get DLC/MTX profit from 3rd party games on the system...Sony's big games don't have many MTX but they do have DLC and their third party games (which is the majority of games that would be on the service) do as well...high profit margins on that. So you relegating Game Pass to just exclusive games is not what I'm discussing. So I'm not sure what you are commenting on.
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
I'm just going to say that you contradicted yourself in 3 and 4...you say that they can't get 20/30 million users but then say who's going to buy traditionally if they can get all of Sony games with a yearly pass. That literally makes no sense. Game Pass isn't an Xbox only exclusive system. They get DLC/MTX profit from 3rd party games on the system...Sony's big games don't have many MTX but they do have DLC and their third party games (which is the majority of games that would be on the service) do as well...high profit margins on that. So you relegating Game Pass to just exclusive games is not what I'm discussing. So I'm not sure what you are commenting on.
Okay, so I don't believe Sony would do Game Pass as in exactly what MS is doing, which is promising every first party release. That's because things like God of War will have cost them easily over a hundred million dollars, and there's nothing in there to make any money back. If MS gives away a GaaS title, it has hooks to make them money.

If you mean Sony do a Game Pass that doesn't include their single player titles, sure, that's just PS+/GwG but bigger. Sony used to have semi-permanent + games last generation. But TLoU3, Death Stranding 2, Horizon 2? No, they're never going to give those kinds of games away with a Pass program.
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
Okay, so I don't believe Sony would do Game Pass as in exactly what MS is doing, which is promising every first party release. That's because things like God of War will have cost them easily over a hundred million dollars, and there's nothing in there to make any money back. If MS gives away a GaaS title, it has hooks to make them money.

If you mean Sony do a Game Pass that doesn't include their single player titles, sure, that's just PS+/GwG but bigger. Sony used to have semi-permanent + games last generation. But TLoU3, Death Stranding 2, Horizon 2? No, they're never going to give those kinds of games away with a Pass program.

Yes they would. You get third party games and you differentiate through first party games. Horizon has DLC, you would have way more people potentially buy it who are subscribers than those who buy the game outright. They would do it exactly like Microsoft with third party games and their first party games. But w/e, it doesn't matter until they do it. I think that they will though.
 

flkRaven

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,236
Wow this article is dog shit. Literally every 'suggestion' of what Microsoft could do going forward was either some debunk rumor from a different article or garbage regurgitated for the millionth time over the last ten years. Buy EA/Valve? The leave the game's business meme? Streaming only, despite not being the game-streaming business at all right now?

I think their strategy going forward is pretty clear and transparent. Focus on MAU, expand play anywhere, stay ahead of the curve on power, forwards and backwards compatibility, promote and grow game pass. They want consistent monthly cash flows, and they think they can lock that in with Xbox Live, Gamepass, and GaaS. They want people in their ecosystem, they want people to have Microsoft accounts, etc. Acquiring studios and making new exclusives will be done entirely in service of that.
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
Yes they would. You get third party games and you differentiate through first party games. Horizon has DLC, you would have way more people potentially buy it who are subscribers than those who buy the game outright. They would do it exactly like Microsoft with third party games and their first party games. But w/e, it doesn't matter until they do it. I think that they will though.
You're in for a rude awakening. Not only are Sony not going to do it, MS are never going to make another AAA non-GaaS title ever because of it.

EDIT: Well, not because of it. They're doing Pass because they were never going to anyway is more likely.
 

Ln Wanderer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
46
[QUOTE="Shpeshal Ed, post: 4433825, member: 1721"Anyone expecting a turnaround this generation should probably switch out of "console wars" mode. This is business. Microsoft is currently putting the foundations in place for the platform's future, in particular to launch next gen strongly while also maximising the revenue from the current install base. While the Xbox hardware is "only" at around 40 million, the division itself is making pretty good money given the install base size. They'll sit that out until they're ready for their next console which I expect will go back to being a loss leader in order to try and get back to where they were with the 360.[/QUOTE]

^this

They have been haunted by the launch of the Xbox 1. But in the past couple of years they have really turned things around. They have delivered good products and services, corrected the dumpster fire that was the xbone launch, and positioned themselves as a nice option in the console space. And let's not forget that they have sold around 40 million units. That is nothing to sneeze at. The media has really grabbed hold of this gloom and doom narrative that Xbox is losing and it's easy to pile on. What matters is what your customers and potential customers think of the direction. I for one really like the xbox ecosystem and I have been consistently delighted with what they have given me over the past few years. Yes, I absolutely want them to show some love to their software portfolio. They need to develop some fresh IP and deliver some hits. But I do not understand the "nothing is exclusive because it is on PC" criticism. To me, that is awesome. I can play it wherever I want. I finished Cuphead on my laptop this weekend in a hotel room after playing 90% of it on my xbox. That is freaking rad. I've enjoyed some 360 titles through back compat. That is freaking rad. After they announced that first party games would be on Game Pass, I ponied up for that because guess what? That is freaking rad. I guess for me, that while they are coming from a dark place of that launch, the direction that they are heading looks good to me. Sony is killing it this gen and I love my PS4 as well, but they better not get cocky or they will get knocked off their perch at some point. And that dynamic is GREAT for us as gamers. I want Sony looking back and saying, "Oh shit, people are loving this Game Pass idea and play anywhere. I want MS looking at Sony and saying, "Oh shit, look at Sony's software lineup. We better get busy." Xbox is far, far from dead. As long as they can stay profitable and keep pushing the paradigm forward, they will be just fine.
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
You're in for a rude awakening. Not only are Sony not going to do it, MS are never going to make another AAA non-GaaS title ever because of it.
They hardly have anyways...so it doesn't matter to me, as long as the game is good. It's not like they are putting out some F2P nonsense out there. Halo Wars 2 is GAAS game in Blitz mode...yea, a specific mode...same way with Halo 5, a specific mode for that monetization. Everything else is just as its always been.

I think you are going to be in more of a rude awakening when you see how much gaming go towards a subscription model. ;)
 

tyfon

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,680
Norway
It's all about the games yo!
At least for me, I'd buy a completely bare bones console with no UI and just a disc/cart reader if the games are good.
And I want to own the games.

I think MS will find their niche with the game pass thing. There are many people that would rather rent/stream than own (see netflix), and there are people that get pissed when netflix pulls a movie or show off their rooster and wish they had bought it instead.
And by streaming I mean actually downloading it to your disc and play it as long as it's on the rooster. Actual streaming like PS Now is at the mercy of the speed of light and I don't think it will ever be good enough unless we somehow get FTL communications or they set up servers in every neighbourhood.

So you have nintendo with japanese games and "nintendo games", sony with japanese games and a big collection of internal studios pushing out high quality single player games and most third party games to own, ms will be the netflix of third party western games. At least that's how I see it. There is room for all of these models.
 

StuBurns

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
7,273
They hardly have anyways...so it doesn't matter to me, as long as the game is good. It's not like they are putting out some F2P nonsense out there. Halo Wars 2 is GAAS game in Blitz mode...yea, a specific mode...same way with Halo 5, a specific mode for that monetization. Everything else is just as its always been.

I think you are going to be in more of a rude awakening when you see how much gaming go towards a subscription model. ;)
I have no doubt it'll be really big. GaaS is the future, or even, it's the present really.

I'm not saying MS or Sony are right, just that Sony will not be giving away their AAA single player games.
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
I have no doubt it'll be really big. GaaS is the future, or even, it's the present really.

I'm not saying MS or Sony are right, just that Sony will not be giving away their AAA single player games.
Ok. So you think that Sony will have a subscription service like Game Pass but won't put their AAA single player games on the subscription? Instead if you want to play it, you have to buy it $60 USD? Ok...yea, I don't buy that at all. If you are going to compete, you at least need to be at the same level or better than the competition. But we shall see when it happens.
 

cakely

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,149
Chicago
Well if your being honest, outside media sources have literally ripped X1 apart from the beginning. MS, hasn't been able to say a single thing without some media source challenging them on their PR. From X1, to first party software to 3rd party software. MS hasn't caught a break even though they've made clear moves to right the ship. Sony never caught this much garbage for giant scorpions or the $599. Media outlets are a fickle group and they have their own slant when they want to change the game. Case in point: Look at the difference in the X1 Tomb Raider exclusive and what has happened to the Monster Hunter reviews. The media couldn't shut up about crying over the PS4 version of Tomb Raider (knowing it was exclusive) yet they've kept so, quiet over the lack of reviews with the X1 Monster Hunter game. Then they acted all shocked when the Xbox One actually sold a great deal of copies of the game. Citing how can this be cause we didn't review it. No the media has a play in all this!

It was a giant crab. And the amount of "garbage" that Sony took for E3 2006 was legendary. I take it you weren't around for that.

The idea that all media is inherently biased against the Xbox One brand is simply ludicrous.
 

ABIC

Banned
Nov 19, 2017
1,170
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-future-of-the-xbox-one-2018-2


I just found this article.

I honestly don't agree with it. I can counter argue must points. It seems most recent articles are always negative when it comes to MS or Xbox.

Yet, I slowly see how MS is turning the Xbox brand once again to a profitable position.

No matter what they do, they are harshly criticized.

Thoughts?

How can you even "slowly see MS turning Xbox profitable"?

It's a narrative you're inventing in your head

MS has never said Xbox was unprofitable

Not have they indicated an upwards trajectory

They shat the bed and closed the doors so no one can see the stains


They'll be fine, that Microsoft money ain't going anywhere
 

kappa_krey

Banned
Jan 24, 2018
630
Please see my post above, its really baffling to me. I just dont get it.

I don't get it either. Very weird mentality that's also somewhat toxic in a way. If anything XBO-X will benefit XBO-2 because if MS were able to go the extra mile for a mid-gen refresh, that's a very good sign of how far they're willing to for a proper next-gen console.

Still not thinking either XBO-2 or PS5 are going to be hyper-monster TF beasts like others are predicting (there's no reason to; just give them somewhat better GPUs, much better CPUs, more RAM and faster internal storage), but if I had to put money on which of the two next-gen systems will be the more technically impressive of the bunch right now, it'd be on XBO-2.

And mind, that's going solely off the designs of PS4 Pro and XBO-X
 

Liquidsnake

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,002
I don't get it either. Very weird mentality that's also somewhat toxic in a way. If anything XBO-X will benefit XBO-2 because if MS were able to go the extra mile for a mid-gen refresh, that's a very good sign of how far they're willing to for a proper next-gen console.

Still not thinking either XBO-2 or PS5 are going to be hyper-monster TF beasts like others are predicting (there's no reason to; just give them somewhat better GPUs, much better CPUs, more RAM and faster internal storage), but if I had to put money on which of the two next-gen systems will be the more technically impressive of the bunch right now, it'd be on XBO-2.

And mind, that's going solely off the designs of PS4 Pro and XBO-X


At the end of the day, consumers (us) should want Nintendo, Sony and MS to push each other to hell and back. We stand to benefit as a consumer. This dream of Sony destroying MS gaming division is terribly misplaced.
 

Mass Effect

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 31, 2017
16,987
Okay, so I don't believe Sony would do Game Pass as in exactly what MS is doing, which is promising every first party release. That's because things like God of War will have cost them easily over a hundred million dollars, and there's nothing in there to make any money back. If MS gives away a GaaS title, it has hooks to make them money.

If you mean Sony do a Game Pass that doesn't include their single player titles, sure, that's just PS+/GwG but bigger. Sony used to have semi-permanent + games last generation. But TLoU3, Death Stranding 2, Horizon 2? No, they're never going to give those kinds of games away with a Pass program.

Ok. So you think that Sony will have a subscription service like Game Pass but won't put their AAA single player games on the subscription? Instead if you want to play it, you have to buy it $60 USD? Ok...yea, I don't buy that at all. If you are going to compete, you at least need to be at the same level or better than the competition. But we shall see when it happens.

It makes zero sense for Sony to put their premiere AAA SP games in a sub model. They would never make their money back. I could see them putting smaller, more niche games like Gravity Rush 2 or Wipeout Omega on though. Or maybe something like Uncharted 4's multiplayer.

They could also leverage their legacy games. Bringing back PSOne Classics for a subscription could work.
 
Oct 31, 2017
3,287
Next gen is gonna be tough for them. With people moving digital and games being tied to accounts and ecosystems now, it's gonna be tough getting all those PS4 owners to leave Sony next gen if PS5 ends up being BC like I think it will. MS couldn't have picked a worse gen to screw up in.
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
It makes zero sense for Sony to put their premiere AAA SP games in a sub model. They would never make their money back. I could see them putting smaller, more niche games like Gravity Rush 2 or Wipeout Omega on though. Or maybe something like Uncharted 4's multiplayer.

They could also leverage their legacy games. Bringing back PSOne Classics for a subscription could work.
The purpose of putting those titles on the subscription is to keep people subscribing. You sell other types of games that make more profit and you sell DLC for some of the single player games to make profits from a larger userbase than you would at $60 a pop. The more subscribers you have yearly, the more money you have. You get third parties on board so you make money off of their DLC/MTX as well as those are high profit margins (aka pure profit). That's literally the model that this is about. 3rd parties (well the big ones) want the barrier for entry to be lower so that they can make more money off of DLC/MTX, every DLC/MTX, the platform holder makes money off of. Why do you think EA Access is a thing? Pay $30 a year and get as many users as possible to buy new games and old games all of which sell DLC/MTX as that is where the money is. Sony, would want people to keep coming to their service because it sells...the more subscribers you have, the more you can negotiate the price that you have to pay those publishers to put their game on the service.

It's really not that complicated nor does it not make sense. Well it may not if you can't see beyond what you already know.
 

Moonstone

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14
Berlin
It makes zero sense for Sony to put their premiere AAA SP games in a sub model. They would never make their money back.
Sony is not making most of their money with Horizon sales. They make it with PSN subscriptions and as a provider of the store + disc fees. Neither Sony's or MS' business model is to sell their own games. That is EAs business modell.

Sony and MS want to profit from the ecosytem and take their share. Like steam for instance. If you buy a console you'll spend a couple of hundred of dollars over the years on the ecosystem. Even for movie downloads and the likes. It is nice if Uncharted or Halo are profitable - but that is not the reason why those games get made.
A netflix like sytem could work for any platform holder. It is just a question of the business model behind it. Competition and so on will have an influence - sure. On PS3 PSN+ Sony could get the big hits - they can't get those anymore that cheap as they have more users and as there is competion. Prices will naturaly go up.

PS Now is IMO technically flawed (at least right now). Putting the computing power behind the weakest link (network) will just increase costs by a lot. This could change in the future - but downloading a 800MB PS1 THPS2 is way easier and more cost efficient than streaming it and providing hardware that can run it. Even this PS1 game would cost more networkusage by streaming it than the basic game disc dl'ed over time. Expect how it works for Ps3 or PS4 games. Especially for PS3 games where you need to have special hardware - like having pretty much a PS3 for any user.

This is different to Netflix - because videostreaming needs no special server hardware. A netflix-like downloading service should work better than pure streaming (at least for now and the given games). But it can work for all platform holders - even Nintendo. It just depends on the business model behind it.
 

mariodk18

Member
Dec 27, 2017
1,501
Probably not. But then again this entire console generation is going to see less consoles sold than last gen. Despite that, gamers are buying more games than ever, they're subscribing to more services than ever, they're buying more add on content than ever. In Microsoft's case they're expanding the audience via PC and multiplatform games like Minecraft.

Console hardware sales are still important, but not nearly as important as they were.
Does that take potential/current Switch sales into account?
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,209
I nderstood your post, but you are missing the fact that no one buys EA to then lose FIFA, the NFL exclusive, and Star Wars. EA bought Bioware and Pandemic for about $860M when Mass Effect and Dragon Age were worth more than they are now. You are suggesting MS should pay more than 40 times that for the shell of Mass Effect and the potential of Anthem.

As for FIFA and Madden going into Game Pass, the NFL signed an exclusive deal with EA the year after 2K was sold for $25, with commentary specifically citing that they saw 2K's pricing as devaluing their brand as a reason for the exclusivity. You really think people who see their business in that way, or their colleagues managing FIFA, would accept being included in a $10/month Netflix for games style service? It isn't realistic. MS buying EA to prop up their console business is a great way for every executive in that approval chain to get fired.

Ubisoft, sure. Valve would be a dream for them. CDPR, if available, would be a high value pick up (especially if immediately put on a Shadowrun RPG). The list of good acquisition targets is a mile long. But EA is literally the worst acquisition target for any hardware manufacturer in this industry. Their value is tied to putting anything they make on everything it can run on.

NFL is nothing compared to FIFA. If FIFA is okay with it NFL is going to have to be.
 

Ge0force

Self-requested ban.
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
5,265
Belgium
The purpose of putting those titles on the subscription is to keep people subscribing. You sell other types of games that make more profit and you sell DLC for some of the single player games to make profits from a larger userbase than you would at $60 a pop. The more subscribers you have yearly, the more money you have. You get third parties on board so you make money off of their DLC/MTX as well as those are high profit margins (aka pure profit). That's literally the model that this is about. 3rd parties (well the big ones) want the barrier for entry to be lower so that they can make more money off of DLC/MTX, every DLC/MTX, the platform holder makes money off of. Why do you think EA Access is a thing? Pay $30 a year and get as many users as possible to buy new games and old games all of which sell DLC/MTX as that is where the money is. Sony, would want people to keep coming to their service because it sells...the more subscribers you have, the more you can negotiate the price that you have to pay those publishers to put their game on the service.

It's really not that complicated nor does it not make sense. Well it may not if you can't see beyond what you already know.

So you think that subscription services will push MT's and paid DLC even more? :-(
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
So you think that subscription services will push MT's and paid DLC even more? :-(
No. It's already here. Nothing is stopping that train. What it will do is increase the potential of businesses to profit more. Instead of profitting on users who only buy your game, you have the potential of everyone on the service at least trying your game since it is apart of the subscription.
 

Mass Effect

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 31, 2017
16,987
The purpose of putting those titles on the subscription is to keep people subscribing. You sell other types of games that make more profit and you sell DLC for some of the single player games to make profits from a larger userbase than you would at $60 a pop. The more subscribers you have yearly, the more money you have. You get third parties on board so you make money off of their DLC/MTX as well as those are high profit margins (aka pure profit). That's literally the model that this is about. 3rd parties (well the big ones) want the barrier for entry to be lower so that they can make more money off of DLC/MTX, every DLC/MTX, the platform holder makes money off of. Why do you think EA Access is a thing? Pay $30 a year and get as many users as possible to buy new games and old games all of which sell DLC/MTX as that is where the money is. Sony, would want people to keep coming to their service because it sells...the more subscribers you have, the more you can negotiate the price that you have to pay those publishers to put their game on the service.

It's really not that complicated nor does it not make sense. Well it may not if you can't see beyond what you already know.

Sony AAA SP games don't tend to get a lot of DLC, if any. Most of those games get 1 $20 expansion. Bloodborne, TLOU, Uncharted (campaign), Horizon, etc. have all followed this model. There wouldn't be much money behind that strategy at all, especially since a large portion of people don't even finish single-player games. And I doubt the subs would make up for the budgets for these games. Remember that most of Sony's big games aren't like Microsoft's with big monetization methods. Hell, GT:Sport doesn't even have microtransactions, and that's a game it would make perfect sense for.

Like I said, they can still do it for their smaller games or their multiplayer games. I'd love to see a Warhawk 2 (no Starhawk doesn't count) subsidized by a PSN Game Pass. And they can also offer PS1 and 2 games as a part of the sub.

The reason EA Access works is because all of EA's games are heavily monetized with microtransactions. Sony's SP games are not usually.

And keep in mind I'm talking about the here and now. Now, there is little incentive for Sony to do this. They're hitting record sales in terms of both hardware, software, and services.

Sony is not making most of their money with Horizon sales. They make it with PSN subscriptions and as a provider of the store + disc fees. Neither Sony's or MS' business model is to sell their own games. That is EAs business model.

Sony and MS want to profit from the ecosytem and take their share. Like steam for instance. If you buy a console you'll spend a couple of hundred of dollars over the years on the ecosystem. Even for movie downloads and the likes. It is nice if Uncharted or Halo are profitable - but that is not the reason why those games get made.
A netflix like sytem could work for any platform holder. It is just a question of the business model behind it. Competition and so on will have an influence - sure. On PS3 PSN+ Sony could get the big hits - they can't get those anymore that cheap as they have more users and as there is competion. Prices will naturaly go up.

Sure, but if Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) didn't care about their games losing money, then the likes of Zipper, Evolution Studios, and Liverpool would still be around. I'm aware that first-party games aren't the primary source of money for the console manufacturers, it doesn't mean they like losing money on those games however.

In 5 to 10 years who knows where things will be, but for right now, I'm not seeing the incentive to put something like the new God of War on a sub service day and date.
 

zedox

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,227
Sony AAA SP games don't tend to get a lot of DLC, if any. Most of those games get 1 $20 expansion. Bloodborne, TLOU, Uncharted (campaign), Horizon, etc. have all followed this model. There wouldn't be much money behind that strategy at all, especially since a large portion of people don't even finish single-player games. And I doubt the subs would make up for the budgets for these games. Remember that most of Sony's big games aren't like Microsoft's with big monetization methods. Hell, GT:Sport doesn't even have microtransactions, and that's a game it would make perfect sense for.

Like I said, they can still do it for their smaller games or their multiplayer games. I'd love to see a Warhawk 2 (no Starhawk doesn't count) subsidized by a PSN Game Pass. And they can also offer PS1 and 2 games as a part of the sub.

The reason EA Access works is because all of EA's games are heavily monetized with microtransactions. Sony's SP games are not usually.

And keep in mind I'm talking about the here and now. Now, there is little incentive for Sony to do this. They're hitting record sales in terms of both hardware, software, and services.



Sure, but if Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) didn't care about their games losing money, then the likes of Zipper, Evolution Studios, and Liverpool would still be around. I'm aware that first-party games aren't the primary source of money for the console manufacturers, it doesn't mean they like losing money on those games however.

In 5 to 10 years who knows where things will be, but for right now, I'm not seeing the incentive to put something like the new God of War on a sub service day and date.

You do realize that the basis of what I'm talking about is the same what the platform holders do now. First party keep people on the platform, and majority of their money is through third party software transactions (sales/DLC/mtx). In this sense, Platform = Game Pass. What first party does is increase subscribers = first party increase users on the console. It's literally the same process, all it does is lower the barrier to entry for each game and allows third parties to potentially earn more money as they get money from the deal that from being on the platform (upfront money from the platform holder) and money from DLC/MTX. Sony gets money from the subscribers and a piece from every DLC/MTX transaction. Their first party will do as they always do. :)
 

MAX PAYMENT

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
4,246
I don't get it either. Very weird mentality that's also somewhat toxic in a way. If anything XBO-X will benefit XBO-2 because if MS were able to go the extra mile for a mid-gen refresh, that's a very good sign of how far they're willing to for a proper next-gen console.

Still not thinking either XBO-2 or PS5 are going to be hyper-monster TF beasts like others are predicting (there's no reason to; just give them somewhat better GPUs, much better CPUs, more RAM and faster internal storage), but if I had to put money on which of the two next-gen systems will be the more technically impressive of the bunch right now, it'd be on XBO-2.

And mind, that's going solely off the designs of PS4 Pro and XBO-X
It's extremely toxic and one of the biggest reasons I despised GAF. There were many people there openly posting that xbox isn't even a viable games platform. What. The. Hell.
It's immature fanboyism, with an extreme lack of seeing the bigger picture at best.
 

Ryng™

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,641
Italy
Honestly..... i feel like Microsoft does not makes any sense in the current console market anymore. This is just my opinion. In 2013, Xbox one was looking like an interesting console, i was actually interesting in buying a xbox one. I never did it tho, just because i had no chances. When i had the possibility to buy a new console, in 2015, i had to choise PS4. It got more games i was interested. But that's not because i didn't want a Xbox one, really like i said, the only reason was that PS4 was more important for me.
I'm glad about the decision i made, because right now, i would never buy a Xbox one.

I hope people don't get this as a console war post, if anyone get offend, i ask sorry, but to me Xbox one just looks like a console withouth a soul in 2018. What is the sense of a console like Xbox one? Microsoft does not makes axclusives anymore, it really makes no sense to buy an Xbox one when there is the PC.

A console should be something which gives you exclusives experiences that only consoles can offer, something both PS4 and Swicth does. I just don't see the sense of having a console like Xbox one in 2018. Things were different in 2015, but after that MS started to port every exclusives on Windows.

I don't want to look like a Xbox hater or something like that, expecially when i loved my 360, but right now, i would like a market withouth Microsoft. They did many good things for the console market. A lot of things we have today, are because of the XBOX/Xbox360, and i thank them for this. But those days are gone. I don't think Microsoft make sense anymore in the console market.

Many people are gonna disagree with me, i know, that's totally fine, but wanted to share my opinion.
 

Karateka

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,940
Honestly..... i feel like Microsoft does not makes any sense in the current console market anymore. This is just my opinion. In 2013, Xbox one was looking like an interesting console, i was actually interesting in buying a xbox one. I never did it tho, just because i had no chances. When i had the possibility to buy a new console, in 2015, i had to choise PS4. It got more games i was interested. But that's not because i didn't want a Xbox one, really like i said, the only reason was that PS4 was more important for me.
I'm glad about the decision i made, because right now, i would never buy a Xbox one.

I hope people don't get this as a console war post, if anyone get offend, i ask sorry, but to me Xbox one just looks like a console withouth a soul in 2018. What is the sense of a console like Xbox one? Microsoft does not makes axclusives anymore, it really makes no sense to buy an Xbox one when there is the PC.

A console should be something which gives you exclusives experiences that only consoles can offer, something both PS4 and Swicth does. I just don't see the sense of having a console like Xbox one in 2018. Things were different in 2015, but after that MS started to port every exclusives on Windows.

I don't want to look like a Xbox hater or something like that, expecially when i loved my 360, but right now, i would like a market withouth Microsoft. They did many good things for the console market. A lot of things we have today, are because of the XBOX/Xbox360, and i thank them for this. But those days are gone. I don't think Microsoft make sense anymore in the console market.

Many people are gonna disagree with me, i know, that's totally fine, but wanted to share my opinion.
Let me tldr this post for you:

I'm not a fanboy! I just think xbox one should not exist because MS do not make exclusives anymore! Unlike Nintendo and Sony. A console doesnt need to exist if it doesnt have exclusives! So Xbox one does not need to exist!

...
This post might have been parody and it was funny if it was but if not you need to think throigh your opinion logically. I just see one statement posted over and over again (a statement that isnt true) woth no ressoning whatsoever).
 
OP
OP
SnatcherHunter

SnatcherHunter

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
13,567
Honestly..... i feel like Microsoft does not makes any sense in the current console market anymore. This is just my opinion. In 2013, Xbox one was looking like an interesting console, i was actually interesting in buying a xbox one. I never did it tho, just because i had no chances. When i had the possibility to buy a new console, in 2015, i had to choise PS4. It got more games i was interested. But that's not because i didn't want a Xbox one, really like i said, the only reason was that PS4 was more important for me.
I'm glad about the decision i made, because right now, i would never buy a Xbox one.

I hope people don't get this as a console war post, if anyone get offend, i ask sorry, but to me Xbox one just looks like a console withouth a soul in 2018. What is the sense of a console like Xbox one? Microsoft does not makes axclusives anymore, it really makes no sense to buy an Xbox one when there is the PC.

A console should be something which gives you exclusives experiences that only consoles can offer, something both PS4 and Swicth does. I just don't see the sense of having a console like Xbox one in 2018. Things were different in 2015, but after that MS started to port every exclusives on Windows.

I don't want to look like a Xbox hater or something like that, expecially when i loved my 360, but right now, i would like a market withouth Microsoft. They did many good things for the console market. A lot of things we have today, are because of the XBOX/Xbox360, and i thank them for this. But those days are gone. I don't think Microsoft make sense anymore in the console market.

Many people are gonna disagree with me, i know, that's totally fine, but wanted to share my opinion.


I respect your opinion. But based on recent rumours, there are many games I cannot wait to play from MS.

Having MS around is very healthy to the market and will keep pushing Sony being creative.