Support NeoGAF

[DarkMage619]

The reality is that whatever Nintendo and Sony are doing TODAY is generating them record profit numbers that Microsoft's gaming division has never had in their entire existence.
That's the reality you're calling 'prehistoric'.


Microsoft on the other hand isn't bringing in record breaking numbers, in fact they're hiding most of their numbers and only sharing vague 'engagement, X hours spent playing our games' numbers.

Somehow someway you're convinced that Microsoft's approach (that has yet to prove itself) > the prehistoric way (that's better than ever).

Who's not seeing the reality?
R Redlight

I guess we'll see how things go. MS was made fun of for pushing broadband online gaming with Xbox live. The traditional console makers took generations but they eventually did the same thing but at a lesser quality. If game pass flops we'll have our answer but with Sony's massive install base PSnow is beating game pass isn't it?

 

[Redlight]

Microsoft on the other hand isn't bringing in record breaking numbers, in fact they're hiding most of their numbers and only sharing vague 'engagement, X hours spent playing our games' numbers.

Somehow someway you're convinced that Microsoft's approach (that has yet to prove itself) > the prehistoric way (that's better than ever).

Who's not seeing the reality?
R Redlight

Is this your argument for why MS should just keep doing things they same way they always have?

It's really not as compelling as you think it is.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I don’t get why people are so blinded by their love to their plastic box that they cannot comprehend what ms is trying to do. They have probably looked At couple of the last generations of console market results and could see that gamers can switch their platforms, thus one won generation doesn’t set you for leadership in the market

What a WEIRD thing to say...
Because they have clearly already decided it is impossible to beat Sony next gen in hardware sales. So that is directly contradicting your argument that Gamers can switch platforms. If anything this is the generation where switching platforms become harder than ever.

If this is the basis for your entire argument, then I fear to say you don't have much to stand on.

 

[pasterpl]

The reality is that whatever Nintendo and Sony are doing TODAY is generating them record profit numbers that Microsoft's gaming division has never had in their entire existence.
That's the reality you're calling 'prehistoric'.


Microsoft on the other hand isn't bringing in record breaking numbers, in fact they're hiding most of their numbers and only sharing vague 'engagement, X hours spent playing our games' numbers.

Somehow someway you're convinced that Microsoft's approach (that has yet to prove itself) > the prehistoric way (that's better than ever).

Who's not seeing the reality?
R Redlight

for company (Gaming division) that people say (On this forum) it is so horrible they doing decent, literally reaching new highs in terms of gaming revenue every year for the last 3 years

Satya Nadella says Microsoft's gaming business is worth billions and profitable - MSPoweruser

Update: Satya Nadella commented on Microsoft’s gaming business as well. He said: “Our gaming business now is more than $9 billion and growing profitably. The gaming world is growing faster than ever before from gameplay across multiple devices, to the explosive growth in streaming and eSports...

mspoweruser.com

How Microsoft’s record-setting $10B gaming year compares to rivals Sony and Nintendo

In a fiscal year littered with firsts, Microsoft's gaming division hit a new high water mark.

www.geekwire.com

Xbox revenue dips to $2.05 billion as Xbox LIVE users rise

Microsoft's Xbox division pulls in less money in Q4, but Xbox LIVE active users are up to a record high.

www.tweaktown.com

yes, these numbers are much lower than Nintendo or Sony but these are not bad results for some one who is being accused of not having games and being horrible, Xbox division generates approx 10% of ms revenues

 

[H-I-M]

Is this your argument for why MS should just keep doing things they same way they always have?

It's really not as compelling as you think it is.

No.
It's one thing to say that Microsoft's 'traditional' approach isn't working for them and that they desperately need to change their vision.

It's another to call Sony and Nintendo's approaches as 'prehistoric', while completely ignoring that they're doing much much better than Microsoft has ever done.

 

[pasterpl]

What a WEIRD thing to say...
Because they have clearly already decided it is impossible to beat Sony next gen in hardware sales. So that is directly contradicting your argument that Gamers can switch platforms. If anything this is the generation where switching platforms become harder than ever.

If this is the basis for your entire argument, then I fear to say you don't have much to stand on.

i was thinking about x360 gen to xbone gen, where lots of x360 owners switched to Sony (due to various reason, but it shows that these ecosystem migrations can happen)

 

[SoraNoKuni]

Well Europeans especially don't like that American style marketing of flexing and talking nonsense, few words more results.
XONE sales in Europe and Japan reflect that, I imagine XSX will be even worse this time.

Kojima once stated about the gamer mentality of Europe vs America regarding Death Stranding, can't recall what exactly he said but it's more or less the idea about MS VS Sony, people talk about brand loyalty but literally the whole planet now knows MS is not good when it comes to gaming except the loyal customers in America supporting Microsoft because it's an American company.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

If GamePass works out Sony will just counter it. And we all know who would win the content war...

 

[Gavon West]

The reality is that whatever Nintendo and Sony are doing TODAY is generating them record profit numbers that Microsoft's gaming division has never had in their entire existence.
That's the reality you're calling 'prehistoric'.


Microsoft on the other hand isn't bringing in record breaking numbers, in fact they're hiding most of their numbers and only sharing vague 'engagement, X hours spent playing our games' numbers.

Somehow someway you're convinced that Microsoft's approach (that has yet to prove itself) > the prehistoric way (that's better than ever).

Who's not seeing the reality?
R Redlight

Because you bold out your posts doesn't make it accurate. See what I'm sayin? Y'all are trying to paint a picture, but you're blind AF.

If Sony and Nintendo's playbook was so much win, why doesn't the world's richest software company follow it? Why did they literally reshape the entire gaming community landscape around both Sony and Nintendo? Are you guys that fucking blind? If you pay attention, its almost like they could give fuck all about what Sony or Nintendo are doing.

Like, they aren't even almost trying to follow either one of them, and instead, went their own way out grew them both in the process. Almost like their preparing for bigger fish, with bigger goals.

Why not forget about the petty ass, imaginary console war that lives in your head that you believe STILL exists in static boxes under your TV sets (lol) and see the reality.

Its like that old saying: when you're the smartest one in the room, its time to find another room...

Guess what Microsoft did, and take another guess at who's still back in the old room?

 

[Gavon West]

If GamePass works out Sony will just counter it. And we all know who would win the content war...

Sony ain't countering shit when it comes to GP. They can't afford to take such heavy losses to sustain PS Now until its profitable because the PlayStation brand is the only real venture that makes Sony money. They ain't Microsoft. Not day and date new releases. That's the reality.

 

[LostDonkey]

The unobtainable isn't our focus any more.

I guess it's good business to stop chasing something you're never going to accomplish and focus on services that you can, MS has always been a software company, look at what they achieved with Windows. If they can get Xbox gaming on more devices than Sony can PlayStation then they'll see that as winning I suppose.

More games for everyone in more places means we All win.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Sony ain't countering shit when it comes to GP. They can't afford to take such heavy losses to sustain PS Now until its profitable because the PlayStation brand is the only real venture that makes Sony money. They ain't Microsoft. Not day and date new releases. That's the reality.

I heard the Microsoft war chest argument way back in 2001 and look where we are now. I don't think the Xbox division is allowed to lose all that money.

 

[Chun Swae]

I heard the Microsoft war chest argument way back in 2001 and look where we are now. I don't think the Xbox division is allowed to lose all that money.

It seems to be the one argument that poster still has even though he's ignored that the other two companies make more money doing things the traditional way that trying to subsidize a subscription service.

PSNOW's 2019 price cut to lower than the cost of Gamepass is proof that Sony can counter MS if they feel so inclined. Mind you they've had the only console streaming service for years which microsoft is still trying to break into so no countering is needed there. Also I don't know where this argument comes from that in order for PSNOW to compete with Gamepass Sony must put all their first party games on the service day and date when that's blatantly false. PSNOW is only available in 19 countries and did not do agressive 1 dollar promotions and still has 2.2 million subscribers. While gamepass is available in over double the countries as PSNOW (41) and only has 10 million, who knows how many did the xbox live gold transfers and got years for free.

 

[jimbojim]

Sony ain't countering shit when it comes to GP. They can't afford to take such heavy losses to sustain PS Now until its profitable because the PlayStation brand is the only real venture that makes Sony money. They ain't Microsoft. Not day and date new releases. That's the reality.

If you didn't noticed, except TV and mobile segment, all other segments are profitable in Sony
Anyway, regarding Microsoft warchest, Microsoft isn't charity for Xbox. Xbox is on their own.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I doubt it will happen soon but just imagine an app on your tv that just streams games and you don’t even need a console. All you pay is a sub and you can play a vast library of games... A real Netflix of gaming

Sony did it before (early on PSNow)... They let it go in 2017.

The PSNow library is over twice the size of gamepasse's...

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Because you bold out your posts doesn't make it accurate. See what I'm sayin? Y'all are trying to paint a picture, but you're blind AF.

If Sony and Nintendo's playbook was so much win, why doesn't the world's richest software company follow it? Why did they literally reshape the entire gaming community landscape around both Sony and Nintendo? Are you guys that fucking blind? If you pay attention, its almost like they could give fuck all about what Sony or Nintendo are doing.

The world's richest company is Apple, not Microsoft.

Second, as we have seen by now, Microsoft did follow Sony and Nintendo; Xbox just did a worse job, and thus lost. And now Xbox realize there is no way back because Microsoft is not going to give away any more free money to finance another generation.

The fact that you still use Microsoft's wealth like it is at all relevant, show that you are denying the reality that the Xbox Division failed to pull their own weight, and thus are very much unimportant to Microsoft at large. Money wouldn't win you a console generation.

 

[anothertech]

"We've built the most mind blowing powerful dedicated game console in existence. Billions in design and r&d went into this project.

Please don't buy it. "

Honestly, it sounds like you're preparing us all for the mind blowing price Phil.

 

[Zato]

He is right, they don't sell more consoles than PS or Nintendo ....... this isn't so much a statement of intent or a strategy, its called being last.

 

[eyesabitdull]

None of this makes sense, and it's embarrassing.

Hey we are going to talk incessantly about our new console. That we don't care if you buy. But our primary competitors are Amazon and Google. Who either don't have products or have products that are unviable disasters. And we really want you to buy Game Pass. And for as many months as you can. For a dollar. Because we like spending 500 million dollars developing a game that looks terrible. And the best way for us to recoup that is for you to pay us a dollar a month. Because endless subscriptions are the future. And it works best on the Xbox console. That we don't care if you buy of course. Also we really admire Nintendo and what they did with their exclusives, such as Animal Crossing. Which has already earned them over a billion dollars. But we think exclusives are anti-consumer. So don't buy our system instead. Because we don't care if you do or not. We just want you to sign up for Game Pass. Can we have a dollar please?

Jesus man. When you put it that way.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

No. He's saying, "the traditional, prehistoric way to do business in the console space is not our ONLY approach because we've out grown the tiny space under your television set”.

To be so called gaming enthusiasts many on this forum are daft AF or willfully ignorant. Its kinda creepy in a "kool-aid" kinda way how you guys champion a static industry that barely even exists anymore - like you guys aren't willing to see reality. Or just trying to create a BS narrative and hope it sticks. Its fucking weird.

Ok don't act surprised if it meets MIXER fate later on.

 

[sircaw]

Because you bold out your posts doesn't make it accurate. See what I'm sayin? Y'all are trying to paint a picture, but you're blind AF.

If Sony and Nintendo's playbook was so much win, why doesn't the world's richest software company follow it? Why did they literally reshape the entire gaming community landscape around both Sony and Nintendo? Are you guys that fucking blind? If you pay attention, its almost like they could give fuck all about what Sony or Nintendo are doing.

Like, they aren't even almost trying to follow either one of them, and instead, went their own way out grew them both in the process. Almost like their preparing for bigger fish, with bigger goals.

Why not forget about the petty ass, imaginary console war that lives in your head that you believe STILL exists in static boxes under your TV sets (lol) and see the reality.

Its like that old saying: when you're the smartest one in the room, its time to find another room...

Guess what Microsoft did, and take another guess at who's still back in the old room?

I actually see Gamepass working, i can see its benefits, and i can also see the strategy behind it.

But I am also terrified at what it means for the gaming community as a whole.

Take this Halo fiasco for example.

Microsoft was prepared to release Halo in that current state this Xmas, as a launch game. They only decided to postpone it because of the tremendous backlash of Craig.

The Top brass of Microsoft must have seen that demo before they showed it, and they must have said, let see what the reaction is, let's try to squeeze it through, perhaps there won't be a backlash, this is a fucking problem.

Game pass needs content to feed it, if Microsoft was prepared to compromise on the quality of a game like halo, just to get it out in time, is a worrying factor. And it will only get worse.

Those big games like Fable and Avowed, I bet you they will be good games but they won't be fucking Spectualor masterpieces that Sony makes, why, Microsoft won't allow it. Sony would give those companies all the time in the world to make the game the most polished game ever. Microsoft will be like, that's good enough, chuck it on.

They don't care about the quality like sony does, if it's good enough use it. This should worry you, it should worry everyone.

How else can you explain that Halo demo? Phil spencer must of fucking seen it before the screening. he gave it the thumbs up. Be fucking afraid. Quantity over quality. We are going to lose the best gaming experiences because a company wants to make a cheap buck, and my fear is they will succeed.

Microsoft is fundamentally changing gaming forever, and i am afraid its for the worse.

They don't care about consoles, they don't care about where you play, they don't care about Sony.

All they care about is if you have game pass. Do they care about quality? not like sony does.

Its fucking Game over if they succeed

 

[LostDonkey]

The world's richest company is Apple, not Microsoft.

Second, as we have seen by now, Microsoft did follow Sony and Nintendo; Xbox just did a worse job, and thus lost. And now Xbox realize there is no way back because Microsoft is not going to give away any more free money to finance another generation.

The fact that you still use Microsoft's wealth like it is at all relevant, show that you are denying the reality that the Xbox Division failed to pull their own weight, and thus are very much unimportant to Microsoft at large. Money wouldn't win you a console generation.

Apple aren't even the richest company in America never mind the world lol

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Xbox Boss: Our Approach Isn't About Selling More Consoles Than PS5

"It is a fundamental difference than the traditional console war"

www.purexbox.com

He is right how they can sell many Xbox consoles If they didnt have games with identidy or charismatic characters? And give shit exclusives.

 

[JonnyMP3]

Indeed. I'm a Dinosaur. Give me the prehistoric way as much as possible!

I'd rather go back to Xboxes stone age than this freelance middle management PR everyone else is spouting about Xbox and Gamepass.

Xbox was this at one point. Cool as fuck!


For those of us that had the 360 during these times, is why Xbox did so well in the first place! It was the MUST have thing... All you insane ass Xbox fan boys spouting GP and Cloud gaming seems to literally forget WTF made Xbox literally a brand in the first place! The hype and excitement of a must have machine.
All of you that have been sucking the Koolaid teat of Don and now Phil, wouldn't know what's 'Cool' if it came and beat the fuck out of you. You're all PR people now!

God... I repeat, I miss Peter Moore!

 

[Grinchy]

Also I think a very large group of you completely musunderstand what ms is saying. They do still care about selling consoles, they do need it to continue and be successful, however they don't care if they sell 50 million consoles this generation or 100 million as long as they have 20 million gamepass or other subscribers and more overall profit.

Think of it this way, a very simplified example.

Mcdonalds sells 100 hamburgers for $1.00 each and makes 20 cents each. Net profit of $20.

Wendys sells 50 hamburgers for $2.00 each for a profit of 80 cents each. Net profit of $40.00.

Do you think they care that mcdonalds "won" the hamburger sales war?

Ok, but imagine you are Ubisoft or EA or one of the 3rd parties who are not going to take a fraction of your projected sales to put your games up on game pass on day 1.

MS is saying, "All we care about is the subscrription money we generate for ourselves. We don't really care if we have a lot of consoles out there." But you are Ubisoft or EA. You do care how many consoles are out there because you are trying to sell full-priced copies.

It's a very strange message from MS to any company who doesn't take the much smaller payment to put their game on the game pass service. They are essentially telling them up front that there won't be many Xbox owners out there, so don't bother putting a bunch of time and money into XSX ports because your only hope is to sell on PC and PS5.

 

[Mmnow]

Ok, but imagine you are Ubisoft or EA or one of the 3rd parties who are not going to take a fraction of your projected sales to put your games up on game pass on day 1.

MS is saying, "All we care about is the subscrription money we generate for ourselves. We don't really care if we have a lot of consoles out there." But you are Ubisoft or EA. You do care how many consoles are out there because you are trying to sell full-priced copies.

It's a very strange message from MS to any company who doesn't take the much smaller payment to put their game on the game pass service. They are essentially telling them up front that there won't be many Xbox owners out there, so don't bother putting a bunch of time and money into XSX ports because your only hope is to sell on PC and PS5.

If you're EA or Ubi, you also care about things like the used market, selling DLC and building up a userbase for later releases. It wouldn't justify it day one - and I'm not sure many people are expecting every release from a third party day one (unless it's a Japanese pivlisher that traditionally doesn't do well on Xbox, I guess) - but the Gamepass model benefits third parties long-term too.

This is especially true if Microsoft's gamble on TVs and phones works out.

Ubi or EA won't give a damn where people are playing so long as they're playing, and paying.

 

[GHG]

Ok, but imagine you are Ubisoft or EA or one of the 3rd parties who are not going to take a fraction of your projected sales to put your games up on game pass on day 1.

MS is saying, "All we care about is the subscrription money we generate for ourselves. We don't really care if we have a lot of consoles out there." But you are Ubisoft or EA. You do care how many consoles are out there because you are trying to sell full-priced copies.

It's a very strange message from MS to any company who doesn't take the much smaller payment to put their game on the game pass service. They are essentially telling them up front that there won't be many Xbox owners out there, so don't bother putting a bunch of time and money into XSX ports because your only hope is to sell on PC and PS5.

I think as a result of this they might try and strike a cash or revenue sharing deal with the likes of Ubisoft and EA to get some of their games on gamepass for console as well.

Can't see it happening on gamepass for PC though since both Ubisoft and EA have competing subscription services on the platform in origin access and uplay plus.

That's why it makes me laugh when people talk about Gamepass being some innovative new service. Origin access launched on PC in 2016 with a ton of third party support.

 

[Tsukumo]

Then your approach is insane, Phil.

 

[Great Hair]

Aren't most Gamepass subscriber on Xbone and not many on the PC?

What if the PC remains stagnant, sees a slow increase year over year, and Xbone people stay on Xbone due Phil telling, promising them that for the next two years exclusives should be forward compatible (natively and in the future via xCloud).

You have to maximize revenue per capita per every game on gamepass by retaining the player for a long time, through dlc, mtx, gameplay suited for a GAAS future ...

Are they banking on xCloud being a success in asian countries? Halo wars 3 on a 6" phone? In public?

xCloud and Gamepass kinda dictate what type of game people can expect to see with such services.

No Cyberpunk, GTA 6 or elder scrolls 6 will ever be available on said service day 1.

 

[BlueXImpulse]

Indeed. I'm a Dinosaur. Give me the prehistoric way as much as possible!

I'd rather go back to Xboxes stone age than this freelance middle management PR everyone else is spouting about Xbox and Gamepass.

Xbox was this at one point. Cool as fuck!


For those of us that had the 360 during these times, is why Xbox did so well in the first place! It was the MUST have thing... All you insane ass Xbox fan boys spouting GP and Cloud gaming seems to literally forget WTF made Xbox literally a brand in the first place! The hype and excitement of a must have machine.
All of you that have been sucking the Koolaid teat of Don and now Phil, wouldn't know what's 'Cool' if it came and beat the fuck out of you. You're all PR people now!

God... I repeat, I miss Peter Moore!

I want this Xbox back.

 

[Grinchy]

If you're EA or Ubi, you also care about things like the used market, selling DLC and building up a userbase for later releases. It wouldn't justify it day one - and I'm not sure many people are expecting every release from a third party day one (unless it's a Japanese pivlisher that traditionally doesn't do well on Xbox, I guess) - but the Gamepass model benefits third parties long-term too.

This is especially true if Microsoft's gamble on TVs and phones works out.

Ubi or EA won't give a damn where people are playing so long as they're playing, and paying.

Once again, you are Ubi or EA. Why is it worth it to you to go through the cost and hassle of making the XSX port for full-priced day 1 sales if MS is telling you up front that there won't be many XSX owners in the first place? There isn't a "down the line" if it's not even worth it to you financially to be there on day 1. That's what's so bizarre about the messaging.

They're telling everyone, "We don't care if there are no Xbox users. We are getting their money from our subscription service even if they choose to play on PC." But you are Ubi or EA and you definitely do care how many full-priced copies you can sell. Game pass later on down the road is not a replacement for full-priced day 1 sales for you. There's no long-term benefit if day 1 sales are terrible. It just still means you barely made anything on the venture.

 

[ReBurn]

"We've built the most mind blowing powerful dedicated game console in existence. Billions in design and r&d went into this project.

Please don't buy it. "

Honestly, it sounds like you're preparing us all for the mind blowing price Phil.

It doesn't take billions in r&d to cobble together pc parts to build a console these days. That's why Sony and Microsoft switched to x64 architecture.

Anyway, software has always been the revenue driver in the video game business, not hardware. For decades we've read stories about how hardware has been sold at a loss early in the generation in order to support game sales. The more people who have a device of some kind that can play your games the bigger your opportunity to sell games is, which is why companies made the investment.

It is also well established that when it comes to pretty much any entertainment market a recurring revenue model is preferable to one time sales. if you can get someone to pay you for something on a regular basis as opposed to paying for it one time you have a more reliable revenue stream. That's why software as a service is becoming the primary delivery model for most markets, from productivity to photoshop. That's why movies and TV are moving to streaming subscriptions from one time sales. That's why everyone is pushing microtransactions and free games like Fortnite make billions of dollars. That's why Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo charge money for access to their online platforms.

Everyone in this thread is acting like Microsoft is lazy or foolish for focusing on a recurring revenue model and that they're only doing it because they can't keep up on the hardware side. But software delivery is the goal of all of these companies. It always has been in gaming. It's not crazy for a company like Microsoft to play to their strength in that area and attempt to disrupt the industry to push it in the direction it's naturally going to go anyway. They may fail in the short term, but video games are going to be a service at some point just like everything else.

 

[Varnish La PS]

Xbox was this at one point. Cool as fuck!

Look at these poor bastards. They think they will have fun with their beautiful machines forever.

After 1 month non-stop 360 party,

 

[JonnyMP3]

I want this Xbox back.

DINOSAURS UNITE!!!
But I am sick of everyone's marketing speech on here though. Microsoft never got so much freelance PR for their 'Services'
Every single wall of text trying to convince the rest of the gaming sphere that the 'Future' of gaming is subscription. Yet Consoles are still selling in their 100 millions...

Dinos are cool anyway. Not that Xbox have any idea of what cool is anymore...

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't see why Phil needs to constantly preach their message to his fanbase. We heard it the first five hundred times. Not all Xbox fans have short attention spans or selective conviently memory lapses.

It’s a marketing ploy, you constantly repeat the same messages, backtrack, then repeat again over and over ad nauseum until it becomes the “new norm” in people’s brains.

Essentially brainwashing, if you allow yourself to succumb to it. He’s literally a living version of a Twitter bot that spams marketing for your business over and over.

Sometimes Phil, less is more.

 

[pasterpl]

Once again, you are Ubi or EA. Why is it worth it to you to go through the cost and hassle of making the XSX port for full-priced day 1 sales if MS is telling you up front that there won't be many XSX owners in the first place? There isn't a "down the line" if it's not even worth it to you financially to be there on day 1. That's what's so bizarre about the messaging.

They're telling everyone, "We don't care if there are no Xbox users. We are getting their money from our subscription service even if they choose to play on PC." But you are Ubi or EA and you definitely do care how many full-priced copies you can sell. Game pass later on down the road is not a replacement for full-priced day 1 sales for you. There's no long-term benefit if day 1 sales are terrible. It just still means you barely made anything on the venture.

doesnt Ubisoft and EA have their own subscriptions on consoles and pc?

 

[Phrixotrichus]

"we kinda fucked up already and are in no position to turn this around short term, so we better start making up excuses right now"

 

[Mmnow]

Once again, you are Ubi or EA. Why is it worth it to you to go through the cost and hassle of making the XSX port for full-priced day 1 sales if MS is telling you up front that there won't be many XSX owners in the first place? There isn't a "down the line" if it's not even worth it to you financially to be there on day 1. That's what's so bizarre about the messaging.

They're telling everyone, "We don't care if there are no Xbox users. We are getting their money from our subscription service even if they choose to play on PC." But you are Ubi or EA and you definitely do care how many full-priced copies you can sell. Game pass later on down the road is not a replacement for full-priced day 1 sales for you. There's no long-term benefit if day 1 sales are terrible. It just still means you barely made anything on the venture.

Firstly, Microsoft will never say they don't want to sell consoles or that they don't care about how many people are "Xbox members". If they come out of the next generation in "first place", they're not going to shrug it off. They care about console sales in the same way any company cares about a product: it needs to be profitable overall. The next Xbox will be profitable. It will sell enough units to make it worth porting a game over to it almost by default. If you don't believe that, well I honestly don't know what to tell you. You're wrong.

MS are saying they're not basing their success on the amount of consoles they shift, because to them (they hope) that number is misleading. If they sell 40m consoles, but have 100m people playing through TVs/phones and PC, and Sony sell 60m consoles, who "wins"? Where does Ubi and EA put most their focus? To Sony's 60m or to Xbox's 100m? Keep in mind, XCloud will be built around the Series X.

For what you're saying to be true, you'd have to presume the next Xboxs will sell so badly and that attach rate will be so bad that third parties literally will see no profit from taking a game they're presumably already building and then porting it across. I don't think any of us know an average for how much a port needs to be profitable. I'd say if you could guarantee a couple of million console units - and that'll sell day one without even taking into account price, power and games - you can guarantee a port at the start of the generation.

That's without the fact that Series S really could be a paradigm shift, especially during a recession, and that if you're making a Series S port you might as well make a Series X port.

Secondly, XCloud is not Gamepass. As far as I've seen, there's nothing stopping Acti, EA or whoever from putting a game on the cloud, and forcing people to pay full price for it. Would there be much demand for that? I'd say no, but either way it's an additional platform for day one sales, not a replacement. Maybe in ten years. This isn't a short push for profit though. Microsoft is in it for the long haul.

Thirdly, I don't think it's a concern anyway for the reasons I've already said, but you also can't put all your eggs into day one sales. Games, especially AAA games, have very long tails. Most people aren't buying every game they're even slightly interested in at full price, and most people aren't buying more than one or two full price games a year. In fact, most people aren't buying games at all, but that's a by the by.

Day one is important. Getting any of those people who don't buy it day one to purchase outside of used is also important, and Gamepass allows that in a way that they can control and that they get paid for.

 

[Drewpee]

Phil has to talk everyday doesn't he

It's not his approach because he knows he can't compete with them that's why Xbox is taking a different route with no exclusives and subscriptions



you sell more consoles = you sell more software on that console

Microsoft should hire you, obvously you have the secret.

 

[Kurimao]

just become a 3rd party then everyone will be happy (maybe not the xbox fans).

 

[Warnen]

just become a 3rd party then everyone will be happy (maybe not the xbox fans).

yep less competition will surely lead to better products for the end users...

 

[MiguelItUp]

I mean, shouldn't that be every console's approach? Especially at launch? To sell as many as possible? So bizarre.

 

[Drewpee]

What a WEIRD thing to say...
Because they have clearly already decided it is impossible to beat Sony next gen in hardware sales. So that is directly contradicting your argument that Gamers can switch platforms. If anything this is the generation where switching platforms become harder than ever.

If this is the basis for your entire argument, then I fear to say you don't have much to stand on.

It is not impossible to beat Sony in consoles sales, or at the very least be extremely competitive. They would have to take drastic steps like selling their console at a ridiculous loss (each console is $100 for example) but it is not as impossible as you think. As a company Microsoft could almost give away millions of consoles and consider it an investment with Gamepass. They would never do that, but it would be an option if making the most sales was their priority.

I think some gamers are so stuck in the traditional way we consume games that change is terrifying. But change is inevitable and the same decisions people might criticize Microsoft for today will be copied by Nintendo and Sony, eventually.

 

[quest]

just become a 3rd party then everyone will be happy (maybe not the xbox fans).

A sony monopoly what could go wrong. Microsoft has no games so what is the point of them going third party? That worked out well for Sega their output is so great lol. If the series x and s fail with gamepass the division folds there is no going third party not worth the effort for Microsoft. The division would of folded without gamepass as the CEO was ready to let it die with a limited budget.

 

[GHG]

It’s a marketing ploy, you constantly repeat the same messages, backtrack, then repeat again over and over ad nauseum until it becomes the “new norm” in people’s brains.

Essentially brainwashing, if you allow yourself to succumb to it. He’s literally a living version of a Twitter bot that spams marketing for your business over and over.

Sometimes Phil, less is more.

I think what he does works to a certain extent though.

If you read some of the posts on here and elsewhere on the Internet it's like some people have become mini versions of him. Some of these guys are nothing more than pr/marketing drones, it's sad to see.

 

[Mmnow]

just become a 3rd party then everyone will be happy (maybe not the xbox fans).

Gamepass doesn't work if you have to cut other first parties in for 30 per cent.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I think what he does works to a certain extent though.

If you read some of the posts on here and elsewhere on the Internet it's like some people have become mini versions of him. Some of these guys are nothing more than pr/marketing drones, it's sad to see.

Does it actually work though?

For example somebody like Steve Jobs had that bit of uncommon charisma, a different way of saying things. On top of that he provided a vision that was contrarian.

A guy like Phil Spencer feels like he's just good at selling cars. Big smile, wants to be your friend, doesn't saying anything thought provoking, doesn't rock the boat, loves to make promises that don't come true. It always feels like you're in a corporate team building session with him.

It's easy to see why youtube personalities love the guy, because he has time for them. But objectively speaking, it's blunder after blunder. Gamepass is literally the only thing that shows promise about Xbox's strategy, which of course is why they are placing all their eggs on it.

 

[DESTROYA]

Phil Spencer : “ OK guys let’s make the most powerful console ever made so we can sell less than the competitors“

:/ sure Phil sure

 

[TGO]

Good, that's means they've been successful for the last 20 years

 

[Numenorean]

I am a Playstation fan but i'm not a fanboy. This move is interesting because MS already has product and services like Office 365 which is cloud based, fee service Office suite.

I dont have the numbers if this product is successful but they already have experience with these kind of services. Like I said, this is indeed very very interesting.