Knitted Knight
Banned
I think the thread title does not need too much explanation for the informed gamer. However lets refresh on the thought process. For every console launch we've become accustomed to console manufacturers competing against each other very hard to release the best first party software at launch. They do this in an effort to differentiate from the competition to sell the box. Unfortunately, with the Xbox Series S/X from MS; this will be the first time we see a departure from said practice. If gamers reward the practice by purchasing the box without levying the proper criticism at the manufacturer (and/or hitting them were it hurts - the purse); I personally think this sets a wrong precedent that other industry players may try to emulate in their search for higher profit margins - in other words - to coast and do as little as possible for maximum return. Considering the fact that the console industry is an oligopoly of only 3 established players (Nintendo/Sony/MS); the options for gamers are few when they all lower standards in search for profit.
MS is finding itself releasing its next-gen family of consoles without a big AAA first party game due to poor studio management, and putting all its eggs into the Halo: Infinite basket. This is a stark contrast to the competition in Sony, that's is releasing the console with multiple AAA first party titles. But more revealing of different culture and values is Nintendo's management and approach when faced with similar circumstances after the failed console life-cycle of the Wii U. What I mean by that is that Nintendo delayed releasing the very popular Nintendo Switch only until it had Zelda: Breath of the Wild ready (a big AAA first party exclusive). Nintendo did this despite the Wii U affording them little time to get ready (while facing all sorts of investor pressure to completely change the company's business model - pivot to mobile, become third party etc). In other words, Nintendo respected and was fearful of their fans expectations, of industry expectations and as such only released when truly ready on both the hardware and software front. Microsoft however is releasing the console without a care for such expectations - and instead trying to shift the attention to other areas. This is of course smart marketing but not necessarily great for gamers as a whole. This is a stark contrast to Microsoft's own past with the Xbox 360 under Peter Moore, or Xbox One's launch under Matrick which saw AAA exclusives like Forza Motorsports, Killer Instinct etc.
Regardless of whether you're a PlayStation, Nintendo, or PC only fan (with no interest whatsoever in ever buying an Xbox console), this state of affairs should concern you for one big reason. These companies compete against each other and try to emulate each other in any area of success (as defined by them - profit). In other words, not only do they copy what a gamer could consider "best practices", BUT also the bad practices (as long as it fattens their bottomline). To a gamer; paywalling online MP access (Xbox Live and PS Plus) may look like a bad practice but to these companies it's just another profit play. Doing less for more, or simply doing less for the same is always in their radar - and in both instances, if rewarded by hardcore gamers with little pushback it will sadly only result in increased shareholder value for these companies for little to no gain to the consumer (gamer).
Do you fear that this will set a wrong precedent for the industry if rewarded across the board? Bad example to follow for industry players like Sony and Nintendo?
Do you care at all despite having no intention of buying an Xbox console?
If you're an Xbox fan do you think hardcore fans as yourself are doing enough to let Microsoft know this is unacceptable to you? Or do you simply don't care?
Is this a reason why you're switching (as a now former Xbox fan) to competing platforms this coming gen and thus that is your way of voting with your wallet (making your voice heard)?
Should Microsoft have done as Nintendo, and delayed launch until both the hardware and software (in this case) was ready?
Feel free to opine.
MS is finding itself releasing its next-gen family of consoles without a big AAA first party game due to poor studio management, and putting all its eggs into the Halo: Infinite basket. This is a stark contrast to the competition in Sony, that's is releasing the console with multiple AAA first party titles. But more revealing of different culture and values is Nintendo's management and approach when faced with similar circumstances after the failed console life-cycle of the Wii U. What I mean by that is that Nintendo delayed releasing the very popular Nintendo Switch only until it had Zelda: Breath of the Wild ready (a big AAA first party exclusive). Nintendo did this despite the Wii U affording them little time to get ready (while facing all sorts of investor pressure to completely change the company's business model - pivot to mobile, become third party etc). In other words, Nintendo respected and was fearful of their fans expectations, of industry expectations and as such only released when truly ready on both the hardware and software front. Microsoft however is releasing the console without a care for such expectations - and instead trying to shift the attention to other areas. This is of course smart marketing but not necessarily great for gamers as a whole. This is a stark contrast to Microsoft's own past with the Xbox 360 under Peter Moore, or Xbox One's launch under Matrick which saw AAA exclusives like Forza Motorsports, Killer Instinct etc.
Regardless of whether you're a PlayStation, Nintendo, or PC only fan (with no interest whatsoever in ever buying an Xbox console), this state of affairs should concern you for one big reason. These companies compete against each other and try to emulate each other in any area of success (as defined by them - profit). In other words, not only do they copy what a gamer could consider "best practices", BUT also the bad practices (as long as it fattens their bottomline). To a gamer; paywalling online MP access (Xbox Live and PS Plus) may look like a bad practice but to these companies it's just another profit play. Doing less for more, or simply doing less for the same is always in their radar - and in both instances, if rewarded by hardcore gamers with little pushback it will sadly only result in increased shareholder value for these companies for little to no gain to the consumer (gamer).
Do you fear that this will set a wrong precedent for the industry if rewarded across the board? Bad example to follow for industry players like Sony and Nintendo?
Do you care at all despite having no intention of buying an Xbox console?
If you're an Xbox fan do you think hardcore fans as yourself are doing enough to let Microsoft know this is unacceptable to you? Or do you simply don't care?
Is this a reason why you're switching (as a now former Xbox fan) to competing platforms this coming gen and thus that is your way of voting with your wallet (making your voice heard)?
Should Microsoft have done as Nintendo, and delayed launch until both the hardware and software (in this case) was ready?
Feel free to opine.
Last edited:
