• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners

S

serversurfer

Member
Synth said:
Well here's the thing... Sony doesn't have a "Windows" of their own, so they can't get a "free" port out to double their revenue, without either creating a PC based platform of their own, or putting the games up on a different companies store.
Click to expand...
As Enigma pointed out, there's nothing stopping them from making their own store, and it wouldn't be any harder for them to port their games to Windows than it is for anybody else. Granted, most PCs aren't really capable of running Sony's engines, but they can clearly make an engine that runs on both platforms, just like everybody else does. And as I explained before, with less overlap between PC and PS users, whatever revenue increase MS see from porting an XB game to PC, Sony's revenue increase would likely be higher still.

But they don't do that because they're in the console business, and they're actually pretty good at it already.

For MS, this makes perfect sense, as they can publish directly to their own store, increase sales, and strengthen their store all at once. If the Xbox One was all they had, then it probably would be strong enough to sustain these games on its own (it's not like it's a historically unsuccessful platform), however they have the option to reach a wider audience whilst still being fully in control of their platform, so why not take it? Especially as the Xbox exists (and always existed) as a means to benefit Windows in the first place. They were going to do the same with the 360, even back when it was kicking ass... they only stopped because the initiative itself fell flat. So no, them putting games on Windows 10 doesn't say much about the console at all... it says far more about what they'd like for Windows (and their current standing in gaming there).
Click to expand...
As I said before, I don't really disagree with any of this, and yes, in the short term, it seems like a pretty good strategy for them. Again, my only question was — assuming Phil is being truthful with us — if a game like QB isn't sustainable on Bone alone, how much will adding PC revenues really change the equation? I said "double" in my example above, but you do realize that's ridiculously optimistic, right? Not even Sony would double their revenues by going PC. Realistically, MS would probably make more money porting QB to PS4 than PC.

It's not even a case of "well, something like Ori may have turned a profit"... there's plenty of larger scale games on the platform that certainly (or extremely likely) turned a profit, even without the existence of a PC port. Even if Halo 5 see a port to Windows 10, it's pretty damn obvious that it didn't require one to make its money back. But if they can double up on that money without creating a whole new game? Why the fuck wouldn't they? Everyone would like to "ensure" that a game can make its money back if there's a safe surefire route. That's why multiplatform games exist. Typically first-parties are less likely to do the same as they don't own the other platform... But hey! In this case they actually happen to!
Click to expand...
Well, like I said, we heard from reliable sources that Halo 5's worldwide launch sales were less than 1.5M units. That's only like $90M street value, and MS only get like 75% of the price of a physical copy, and then duplication and distribution costs come out of that. I don't know how much they spent making H5, but I suspect it was a fair bit more than $70M. Yeah, yeah, great reviews, hojillions of hours played, blah, blah, blah. It's highly unlikely that game came anywhere close to breaking even, and I'll be amazed if the eventual W10 port generates dozens of millions of dollars to make up the difference. Yes, I also realize that retail bought $400M worth of Halo stuff last year, but having sold only a quarter of it, you can bet your ass they won't be doing it again.

Except that is how it works. Windows has no idea what a PlayStation 4 with PSN is doing... arguably it doesn't even know what Steam is doing, it just lets it get on with it. This 'unofficial' approach is ridiculously obvious when you actually play something crossplatform on either side. I just got done playing SFV with my friend on PS4 (I was on PC), and we had to arrange our initial meeting via WhatsApp, as without knowing his CFN ID (which is valid for SFV, and SFV only) we had no way to find each other or invite each other to a game. We could play against each other, but there's no crossplatform party functionality, so he can't put me in a PS4 party to speak amongst other friends, and I can't put him in a Steam party to do the same. Also, I'm not currently playing SFV now, but I have no idea if he is when outside of SFV itself... and he can't send me an invite to see if I'm up for playing again at any point where I'm not actually already playing SFV, as there's no way for the invitation to reach me.

In something like Rocket League the situation is even worse, as there's no real crossplatform functionality beyond the match itself, so you're reliant on creating a named private game, and then providing your friend with the name and password in order for them to locate and join you.

Comparing any of this with how crossplatform gameplay works between Windows 10 and Xbox One is pretty ridiculous tbh... and I'd be surprised to see anyone that's ever tried both implementations to even bother making the argument.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think I actually misunderstood your original point. I thought you were basically saying, "Windows don't care," and therefore worked with everything. I was going to point out that it mostly just works (well) with other MS stuff, and that's by design, so you think everything else kinda sucks.

But yes, MS products typically work well together — when it suits MS, of course — and yes, disparate ecosystems often aren't meshed as smoothly as could be. Could Capcom and Sony have done a better job than they did? Clearly, but I suspect they devoted about as much effort to it as was really warranted based on projected usage, etc. Obviously, there's no standard for this stuff today, but standards have a way of popping up when we really need them. Just look at TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.
 
V

vcc

Member
Synth said:
I suppose. At this point the scenario is a little different because nowadays Sony has little other than gaming going for them. So they're more comparable to companies like Nintendo or Sega, where finding a way to save their gaming line would be a higher priority even during the bad time, than it would be to a company like MS during the great times. However, the IPs are as valuable as the current success is. Sega's IPs were valuable until Sega themselves stopped being so, and Nintendo was kinda heading that direction prior to the Wii.

Outside of Gran Turismo, most of Sony's prominent IPs are relatively new, and may not actually have a significant shelf-life beyond their consoles themselves... so it would be just as plausible for them to sell them, as it would be to try and create new environment (or sell through someone else) in order to sustain them. Sony are more like Sega than Nintendo in this regard. Each generation places new IP at the forefront, and much of what made them successful in a previous generation begins to fade, The studios making the games are where the value really is, rather than the specific IPs themselves.
Click to expand...

Sony does very well in insurance, they also swing wildly with movies and music.What is doing poorly is their TV business and their other mobile electronics lines are tepid. Partly due to decreased camera sensor sales because the whole market segment is selling less (their sensors are in everything).
 
S

Synth

Member
serversurfer said:
As Enigma pointed out, there's nothing stopping them from making their own store, and it wouldn't be any harder for them to port their games to Windows than it is for anybody else. Granted, most PCs aren't really capable of running Sony's engines, but they can clearly make an engine that runs on both platforms, just like everybody else does. And as I explained before, with less overlap between PC and PS users, whatever revenue increase MS see from porting an XB game to PC, Sony's revenue increase would likely be higher still.

But they don't do that because they're in the console business, and they're actually pretty good at it already.


As I said before, I don't really disagree with any of this, and yes, in the short term, it seems like a pretty good strategy for them. Again, my only question was — assuming Phil is being truthful with us — if a game like QB isn't sustainable on Bone alone, how much will adding PC revenues really change the equation? I said "double" in my example above, but you do realize that's ridiculously optimistic, right? Not even Sony would double their revenues by going PC. Realistically, MS would probably make more money porting QB to PS4 than PC.


Well, like I said, we heard from reliable sources that Halo 5's worldwide launch sales were less than 1.5M units. That's only like $90M street value, and MS only get like 75% of the price of a physical copy, and then duplication and distribution costs come out of that. I don't know how much they spent making H5, but I suspect it was a fair bit more than $70M. Yeah, yeah, great reviews, hojillions of hours played, blah, blah, blah. It's highly unlikely that game came anywhere close to breaking even, and I'll be amazed if the eventual W10 port generates dozens of millions of dollars to make up the difference. Yes, I also realize that retail bought $400M worth of Halo stuff last year, but having sold only a quarter of it, you can bet your ass they won't be doing it again.


Sorry, I think I actually misunderstood your original point. I thought you were basically saying, "Windows don't care," and therefore worked with everything. I was going to point out that it mostly just works (well) with other MS stuff, and that's by design, so you think everything else kinda sucks.

But yes, MS products typically work well together — when it suits MS, of course — and yes, disparate ecosystems often aren't meshed as smoothly as could be. Could Capcom and Sony have done a better job than they did? Clearly, but I suspect they devoted about as much effort to it as was really warranted based on projected usage, etc. Obviously, there's no standard for this stuff today, but standards have a way of popping up when we really need them. Just look at TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you're inferring far too much based on a few words Phil said, especially when they were said in response to a "why are all my games getting ported?" style question... so he's inclined to make it sounds as though there's some universal benefit beyond "well, it makes us more money". Saying that these measures help to ensure that games of these types can continue being made, doesn't mean that they wouldn't survive if the Xbox console was all there was. Much like how wearing a seatbelt helps keep you alive when driving, but not wearing one doesn't mean you're definitely gonna die. Yoshida also stated recently(ish) that out of 10 games they create, maybe 4 will make their money back, and of those 4, 2 will likely be successful enough to cover the costs of all the titles that lost money. This is all well and good, but then what happens to all but that 2? Generally those games won't receive a sequel, as they've been shown to not be viable long term.. so you can have an unquestionably healthy console like the 360, but then still fail to receive an Alan Wake 2. So when stating that releasing on Windows 10 helps to keep games like these coming, it can just as easily mean that each individual game is less likely to become a one-off, and will sell enough to move into "profitable, let's do a sequel" territory. So something like Sea of Thieves stands a better chance of not becoming another Kameo or whatever. Phil never actually states that a game like Quantum Break isn't sustainable on Xbox One alone. That's you extrapolating him saying that releasing it on Windows 10, helps to sustain it... which is a different matter, and entirely logical. Releasing Infamous on Xbox One would help to sustain it too, whether it needs it or not.

As for Halo, I think you're painting a laughably bleak picture of the game's performance. 1.5m first week WW is certainly much lower than previous Halos, but Halo hasn't been barely breaking even or whatever in the past... it makes money hand over fist. It also hasn't suddenly stopped selling after week one, and quite likely won't any time soon. Also the revenue MS reports isn't from there being like $200m+ of inventory sitting on store shelves. The revenue is bolstered massively by the success of REQ packs. It's quite possible that Halo 5 will pull in more revenue than previous Halos even with less sales, due to it having a payment model that sees cash continue to come in long past the initial sale. If Halo 5 of all games isn't making its money back right now, then the industry is fucked. Even with their commanding lead, very few Sony exclusives are going to perform in line with Halo 5 this gen.

Also, yes... it actually likely would be more difficult for Sony to port their games to PC than anyone else. Everyone else creates a DirectX implementation by default, which then applies to both the PC and Xbox ports of the games. Sony up to now never has a reason to do this with any of their inhouse games, engines, etc. And sure, they can create their own storefront... but then they get to be Origin, just with far less unique (and popular) games. Unless they implement an entire PlayStation platform on PC, rather than just a standard store selling Win32 games, then they're just Steam with less content really. This would be (and somewhat was, with GFW) the case for MS as well.. releasing a standalone client just means you have to try and compete with the dominant store on content alone, which at this point is pretty much unrealistic when talking about what Steam has become. MS however has the advantage of being able to simply embed their store directly into the OS now though, so they can more easily reach customers with their software. The store will even recommend you software the moment you start typing it's name into the search bar. The realities of releasing software on PC aren't even remotely the same for MS and Sony, so the fact that Sony doesn't isn't simply a case of "they're so good with consoles"... because they didn't do it last gen either when the 360 ate half their market, and they were bleeding all the cash they ever made off the PS1 and PS2. And all this ignores the very simply fact that Windows is MS' platform as well, so they have a direct incentive to support it (if it were simply a case of selling more copies, it wouldn't be limited to Windows at all, let alone Windows 10 and the Windows Store)... they could create Windows specific games, much like how Sony creates Vita games, but why do that rather than just release a game you make for Xbox on PC, and vice-versa?
 
Z

Zedox

Member
To answer the question that's been echoed throughout the thread of how it is good for Xbox owners: We will get games that we usually wouldn't get because of how UWP hits both PC and Xbox (obviously depending on the developers wants).

MS releases their 1st party games on PC (and somehow fixes all the issues that people have with it. MS makes it a viable platform for developers to make games on it. There are games that will come out on PC and PS4 but never XBO. Well, if the developer wants more reach, they would make a UWA and a PS4 game. That would effectively let them reuse alot of the same code to make a Xbox One game. So now the developer gets 3 platforms instead of just 2. 1st party games are there to differientiate and to motivate people to buy 3rd party games on the platform. If 3rd parties see that the platform is viable, they will tartget it. That's how it can benefit Xbox owners (and yes, people who only play on console).
 
G

Genio88

Member
dr_rus said:
I'll be kinda surprised if the new Alan Wake won't be a PS4/XBO/PC multiplatform from day one.
Click to expand...

Really? Microsoft have been partnership with Remedy since the launch of 360, I don't think thatall of a sudden they'll let Remedy go, it's more likely that they'll just buy Remedy like they did with The Coalition team and Gears of War brand
 
T

Trup1aya

Member
OttoSporteman said:
Quantum Break is a MS owned property.

Alan Wake Return being on PS4 depends on who's going to fund development, not on QB sales.
Click to expand...

There's a good chance that GB's sales will dictate who is willing to fund development, and how much they are willing to spend...

Rumor has it that Remedy was fixing to pitch Alan Wake to MS, who instead decided to go with QB. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see that there is at least some interest in continuing the existing relationship.
 
D

Dictator93

Member
Sounds like Gears of War Remastered (PC) may be coming out... very soon?

In a tangential article by PcPer:
This is clearly a discussion that is just at its beginning. My gut tells me that Ashes of the Singularity is just the tip of the iceberg, even if the AMD exclusive fullscreen issue gets ironed out with another driver update or game patch. Starting this week, you’ll see games hitting the Microsoft Store that are not going to be available anywhere else, giving gamers no option other that diving into this storm headfirst should they want to get their Gears on. At least for now, we still have Steam, Origin and dare I say it, Uplay, to help us create a more open PC gaming ecosystem.
Click to expand...
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
Genio88 said:
Really? Microsoft have been partnership with Remedy since the launch of 360, I don't think thatall of a sudden they'll let Remedy go, it's more likely that they'll just buy Remedy like they did with The Coalition team and Gears of War brand
Click to expand...

So? Insomniac has been partnering with Sony since PS1 and that didn't stop Sunset Overdrive from happening. Alan Wake is Remedy's IP and thus it would make a lot of sense for them to go multiplatform with it instead of limiting themselves to a lesser selling platform of the generation.
 
Chobel

Chobel

Member
I can't see anyone funding Alan Wake 2 (as an AAA title) other than MS, the disappointing sales of AW will make most publishers avoid it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alan Wake fan buys 4,000 download codes of the original game, only to find out that none of them work
Social 2
64
5K
Kagoshima_Luke replied
Alan Wake 2 becomes Remedy’s fastest selling game
2
84
4K
Shake Your Rump replied
Alan Wake 2: Lack Of Sales Update Suggests It Didn’t Sell Too Well
Rumor Sales-Age 9 10 11 12 13
622
43K
Agent_4Seven replied
Alan Wake 2 — The Dark Place Trailer | Gamescom
2
67
3K
sinnergy replied
Alan Wake 2 will not have performance mode on Xbox Series S (30 FPS Only)
News Cringe Hardware 2
52
4K
SHA replied
Top Bottom