DarkMage619
$MSFT
Who says they don't care about consoles? You realize they made TWO of them this generation right? They care about console it's just not a singular focus like it is for Sony and Nintendo.Question: So since Xbox doesn’t really care about console sales and are more interested in selling software and making customers regardless of platforms, why don’t they release their first-party games on PlayStation?
In addition to not releasing first-party games on PlayStation, MS also keeps buying other multiplatform companies and make their games exclusives, limiting their software reach.
Why?
This goes directly against what you’re saying.
In addition MS has a Windows graphics API called DirectX and entire develop environment dedicated to making PC and console games. All of that goes to waste making games for Switch and PlayStation.
MS also has a little subscription service called Game pass. You know Game pass is on Xbox but isn't on PlayStation or Switch so they'd be losing a major vector for their subscription service as well.
As I told Frank earlier MS is trying to grow their ecosystem and developers willing to sell put their games into that ecosystem. Most of the biggest IP like CoD or Minecraft remain on other consoles and continue to receive support. This is also true for online titles like FO76 and ESO.
Other titles are used to enhance the Xbox ecosystem and you can play those titles on PC, Cloud and console. This is no different than Sony making their games exclusive so we should stop acting like MS is the only platform with exclusives. If a gamer refuses to play those games there that is their loss. MS offers more ways to play their games than any other platform holder.
This publisher argument is arbitrary. There is no law saying a gaming platform can't buy a developer or a publisher. Sony has plenty of permanent third party exclusives along with timed ones. Xbox gamers should not complain because it's business just like when MS buys an exclusive.When have they taken publishers away though? And usually their exclusives are timed, not permanent.
You might not realize this but MS is under no obligation to run their business like Sony and vice versa. MS owns any IP they paid for just like Sony.They owned those ips and kept them to themselves to grow their own streaming service. Comparison? Nobody cares about xbox keeping halo and forza
You are mistaken. MS makes plenty of games and had plenty of studios. They also buy exclusives. At least they don't force customers to buy their hardware. That is not true for Sony and Nintendo. Again I like options.They don't make those games, they bought them to keep them away. Not exclusive to xbox just not on Nintendo and PlayStation. The 2 most popular console options in video game history.
MS is not like Sega. Xbox is a brand of MS. Sega and MS are both companies. Who cares if they have more money than Sega. All I care about as a gamer is that my investment is supported. Right now they are doing so and allowing me to play my older games too with better performance. My money is respected and I like that.You mean xbox is not like Sega. And that's because they are backed by Microsoft. They have not, can not and will not be able to compete without that backing or withoutt their new "strategy"
Now that they own Bethesda, their customers are Bethesda customers. Giving them less options is not support.
Again more arbitrary restrictions. It is competing for the same money and time as every other company. MS does not have to conduct business like Sony. MS has been out maneuvered and still acquired Bethesda and close to getting Activision. As a customer I have no real complaints and have more games secured. I guess people might say means things on a message board I suppose.Buying publishers isn't competition. Xbox or Nintendo could have secured deals for those games. They were out- maneuvered. Sony and Nintendo or xbox can't buy publishers. Microsoft can. Apple can. See?
Oh well. Xbox gamers were going to play Street Fighter 5. Those are the breaks. Xbox gamers will have to cope and so will anyone unwilling to use the Xbox ecosystem for Xbox games. Phil is under no obligation to support non customers.Bethesda was never going to keep their game off of an inevitable 100million selling console. Until phil played take away.
Good for them. I've made a choice too. I choose to not beholden to a single company and play games on all consoles. I guess I'd better manage my time to enjoy the numerous titles I'll be able to play.Pointing things out isn't complaining. When people had a choice they chose over and over, generation after generation, decade after decade. You know that.
I was not. Without the XSS MS would have sold even FEWER consoles. It still offers gamers an affordable way to enter the Xbox ecosystem and as more games become available more systems will sell. It was never about outselling PlayStation. Xbox never has.No you just change it depending on what point you're trying to prove. You've been championing the series s since launch as one of your beloved "choices" you're so glad to have. See the numbers? You were wrong.
Oh it was. As a customer I get more games. MS as a business relies even less on consoles they've never been able to sell in greater numbers than Nintendo and Sony. Looks like a win win as long as you aren't opposed Xbox on principle.Not at all. Again, their opportunity is solely based on the ability of Microsoft being one of a handful of companies with the funds within the scope of the industry to buy publishers of this size. None of this is Phil and xbox division
Sure I'm coping. Coping with all the games MS has been providing their customers with. I don't care about CoD being exclusive but I'm happy that Activision employees will be free of Bobby Kotick and hopefully those studios will make some different games. CoD being multi-platform means more money to be invested in the Xbox ecosystem.This is coping. If they were able to keep COD exclusive you would rent out your nearest arena and have a party.