-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Microsoft Releasing Exclusive Games on PC Is Great for Xbox Owners
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
LukasTaves
Member
IE did come very late to the party and still destroyed Netscape by being bundled in windows back then.
It was only when it become so behind Firefox and Chrome that it lose ground, and even so it took a few years.
LukasTaves
Member
No you didn't
Regarding the bold, it doesn't actually, but that's not all Ms is going for. Ms is coming for 3rd party support too, in fact all of their GDC talks this year are about the unification of the store between Xbox and Win10, and how developers can pursue innovative new ways to sell more games using that store.
As for the second, I agree, but I can see the difference in implementation to believe it has way less chance at happening again.
wapplew
Member
No you didn't
Regarding the bold, it doesn't actually, but that's not all Ms is going for. Ms is coming for 3rd party support too, in fact all of their GDC talks this year are about the unification of the store between Xbox and Win10, and how developers can pursue innovative new ways to sell more games using that store.
As for the second, I agree, but I can see the difference in implementation to believe it has way less chance at happening again.
Sure, it could happen.
Can we put those as perks of the store being super successful?
LukasTaves
Member
Because releasing some exclusive on their store isn't at all the only initiative Ms is pursuing. They are building an unified ecosystem, where all win10 devices can access.
A quick glance at their GDC sessions can already give a clear view of what they are trying to build:
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/...evelopment-for-windows-presented-by-microsoft
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/the-windows-universal-store-presented-by-microsoft
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/...m-uwp-game-development-presented-by-microsoft
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/...with-gaming-on-windows-presented-by-microsoft
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/xbox-live-for-windows-presented-by-microsoft
A few quotes:
That's why what Ms is doing directly benefits xbox. Just putting exclusives games on Pc does not. Building a bigger marketplace that xbox can access does though, and that is what Ms is coming for. Of course, it doesn't mean they will succeed, but if they move fast they will be ahead of the curve instead of playing catch up.
Rather, it's clear that they want to push the Win10 store AND they are aware that it won't do much to Xbox console.
The Idea that choosing to meet their smallest group of Xbox customers where they prefer to be signals that they are fixing to abandon their largest most exploitable group of customers is simply ludicrous. No business in their right mind would see that as a worthwhile trade.
your insinuation that they can't/won't work both markets at once is completely in supported.
wapplew
Member
Do you think MS have any others way to save Windows store?
For them, this is the only move, regardless of the Xbox one value or growth.
No I don't think they have any other way to save the Windows store. i disagree that this attempt to save the store will have an overall negative impact on their console business...
To suggest otherwise is to display a gross misunderstanding of why the majority of console gamers actually choose to play on console. On consoles, The folks who only come for the exclusives are the only at risk segment, and they are the smallest and least profitable. The idea that MS would need to continue to try to steer this group towards their console In order to facilitate growth is simply false.
It's clear to me that they want success on PC and console, so that each side of the business can bolster the other. There's absolutely no reason why aiming to please PC enthusiasts on PC means they can't continue to adequately serve there console userbase. It makes no sense.
wapplew
Member
MS sure want them both win, just like Sony want PS4 and Vita both win with cross buy/same store front etc.
If they both success then everything is well, if one of them fail, there will be shift priority.
Ok. And which is more likely to to occur?
1) Putting 1st Party exclusives on Win10 is a success for the Win10 store, but a massive number of MS' console centric customers decide to become PC gamers, drying up MS' XBL and 3rd party licensing revenues and console sales. MS' exist from the console market.
2) MS' PC initiative is a slow starter. While they successfully increase 1st party sales revenues, and awareness of their online catalog, prominence in the PC space is still a long ways off. Meanwhile, xbox console centric customers generally continue to spend as they alway have, making up a sizeable chunk of current gen software and service revenues. MS plans to leverage this small victory into future opportunities to converge their console and PC gaming business in support of Win10.
3) MS PC initiative is a failure. While PC gamers are interested in MS IP, the software giant has failed to overcome PC gamer's pessimism that has followed them since they entered the console market. Their lagging Xbox console business continues to be their only leg in the gaming business and there only potential connection to PC gamers, unless they choose to embrace current leaders in the PC space.
The idea that MS is expecting/prepping for the first scenario is mind-bogging stupid. It makes no sense that putting 1st party titles on PC will cause the console business to dry up. The idea that people who prefer PC represent a critical chunk of xb1 revenues isn't grounded in reality... Not when you acknowledge how they tend to spend on gaming.
Option 2 is MS' expected outcome and is quite possible if they play their cards right. The idea all of this is just a coordinated effort to back completely away from xb1 is crazy.
Option 3 is actually far more likely than option 1
Option 1 is out of this fucking world
ProfessorMoran
Member
Obviously they can try to fight the pc and console battles at the same time but they're going up against established competition like steam and publisher stores like origin and uplay, and unlike on consoles they don't own the platform and have no real leverage.
They might lose out on the console front if they're not careful, it's hard to fight on both fronts.
That's for MS to deliver. Obviously they haven't shown their full hand yet and who knows what lengths they're willing to go to. But I don't agree with your sentiment that there's no room for additional store fronts. Not when we see so many alternatives in so many industries, including many digital stores competing over the same goods.
It's not just the PC market MS is trying to get into with Windows. Windows is being positioned as a multi-device, mobile-first platform. The Xbox team has been moved under the Windows team to help drive their value prop. They will try to appeal to an audience that expects mobile experiences.
Does that audience even exist? If it's small, will it grow? What kind of tactics are MS willing and able to execute? How will the market respond in the short-term, long-term? What will Google do? What will Apple do? Valve? Lots of questions, we don't have the answers. And let's not pretend like anyone in this forum has a crystal ball.
It's hard to fight anywhere... But business is hard. But this isn't a zero some game in anyway. There's no reason to think that porting Xbox games to PC robs the console side of the resources they need to serve their core customers. If anything is well provide more recourses.
In terms of the PC market place Steam, Origin, and the Win10 store offer completely different products. The Win10 store will be the only place to buy MS IPs. That's their leverage. They aren't out to convince people to stop using Steam or Origin altogether. They can't, because they can't currently offer what those guys offer. Their simply out to show that it's worth sticking your head into their shop for some items you can't get anywhere else. Again, it's not a zero-sum game and it's not about handcuffing the market. Not yet anyway.
You showed that .gif!
but it's a .jpg
Adopted.
This one sums things up rather well.
This isn't official,isn't it?
Night Angel
Member
Judging by the grammatical errors and watermark at the bottom right, probably not.
Of course not. It's very obviously fan made.
Well, it begs the question why a die hard fan would do a positive pr infographic explaining a business strategy for MS. I mean, basically free marketing in art form. I guess the answer is kind of obvious but still...
We discuss this here and agree/disagree, the back n forth but that's marketing right there. I wouldn't be surprised to see that propagated everywhere...Xbox One reddit for sure...IGN comment section....lmao. If it made Gaf...
LukasTaves
Member
There's a main difference between Vita/PS4 and Xbox/Win store though.
Ps4 and Vita required separate investments both costs for funding games and workforce to develop said games.
Ms proposal is a single push to drive a common platform, so any success will be directly applied towards this common platform.
No. It's been floating around twitter this week. Fan made.
In bed with the stranger
You are the very definition of stranger danger.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Funny part is, the PS4 is cross-playing on the PC with more games this gen, than the Xbox. Do they even have a single cross-platform game yet (this gen)?
Do you know how their cross-play works?
That should answer you why it took until now to implement.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I was speaking on that silly fan-made pic with the 'strangers' part. I should have quoted it, but did not because the last few posts were on it's topic.
They are still strangers though... hell, they don't even speak the same language and require a translator whenever they need to accomplish anything together (i.e. bespoke online solution such as CFN).
Windows is just happy work with absolutely anybody... but it doesn't know them, or give a shit about what they're doing at any other time.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I dunno, Rocket League are 'perfect strangers'.
That they are. Even the players on each side are (PSY NET).
LostDonkey
Member
Please don't tease me like this....
They'll probably cap it to 1080/60, same wheel support as the console.
The dream is dead.
Cry
serversurfer
Member
Sure. Like Puddin' said though, all we really have to go by is what Phil said, which was basically, "If this means we can afford to make these games, that's a good thing, amirite?" He could've given a lot of vague platitudes, like, "Obviously, we want to make as much money, err, bring these amazing experiences to everyone we possibly can," or, "We did say we want you to be able to play your games everywhere, and that obviously includes PC. Please be excited for the upcoming Windows Phone version of Quantum Break."
But he's actually seemingly rather candid, effectively sitting Bone owners down and saying, "I know this seems kinda terrible — and you're not completely wrong — but you gotta believe that I'm doing you a favor here." Perhaps it's just BS to help sell the transition, but if he was merely painting pictures, you'd think he'd have chosen a nicer landscape than that one.
Right, and Phil's argument — potentially one he's even making internally — is that rather than simply cut bait as MS would typically do with a failing project, they may be able to capitalize on some of the good will and brand recognition that XBox does have, by hopefully transitioning some of the console users to the W10 store, but more generally, capitalize on the idea that the general public has that XBox means games. When you want games for your new phone, you go to XBox, because that's where the games are. Even if those XBox console gamers end up becoming PlayStation console gamers rather than XBox computer gamers, MS don't want them saying anything worse than, "XBox is still cool, but it's just not really for me anymore; their phone games are pretty fun for what they are though, so I play those at school and stuff, obviously," to their hundreds of millions of potential XBox phone gamers.
Yeah, it's kinda hard to say. Like I said, I do sorta get the impression that he's the one campaigning for the existence of AAA development within the XBox program — since Nadella seems to be primarily focused on using gaming to make their mobile offerings more attractive, without so much as a mention of Windows itself, actually — but it's hard to say whether he's doing that out of a sense of loyalty to the users that MS traditionally see as being one step below their "customers," or whether it's simply a function of the fact that AAA dev teams are what he has right now, and he wants to seem useful while he puts some mobile offerings together. Of course, salvaging what they can of the mind share factors in here as well. /shrug
Err, that's an entirely different situation. First of all, SFV is a Capcom game, and they decide what platforms they're going to support. They chose to support PS4 and PC, and they chose not to support Wii U and Bone. Was any indication given by anyone ever that the game is only coming to PC because that was the only/best way to ensure it broke even?
An analogous situation would be if Sony announced that Uncharted and Horizon are launching day-and-date on PC, and when asked why, they said it was to ensure they could afford to continue making them. Yes, I would actually be quite concerned if they were to do that.
Well, sorta. Obviously, it's fairly complicated, but at the end of the day, yes, it really does boil down to a yes-or-no decision that needs to be made. Let's say QB cost $40M and it wasn't gonna break even on Bone, but they port it to Windows for free to double their revenues, and that means it will break even. So then that means they could've made it Bone-exclusive, but they'd have just needed to restrict their budget to $20M instead, right? Except if they only put half as much work in to it, they'll only get half as much game out of it, which will in turn reduce its appeal, and their sales, and now they're back to not breaking even again. You wanna play Quantum Break, not a cut-rate knock-off, right? See the problem here?
That's not to say Bone is incapable of supporting any exclusives whatsoever. A game like Tetris would be cheap to make and have potentially high sales, for example. Ori may well have turned a profit. But lower budget games not only have less initial risk, they don't need many sales to cover that risk. As budgets increase, risk/reward tends to go down, especially when you're trying to offer something "unique," which basically means, "not having broad appeal." While some exclusives would be feasible, Phil said the bigger stuff like Sea of Thieves was coming to W10 to ensure they'd cover their budget, and then games like QB got delayed and are now sim-shipping as well.
But again, I'm mostly just going by what Phil said, because yeah, the possibilities are sorta endless…
Huh. I was actually thinking that was a missed opportunity for them, and kind of a PITA for the user, but I just looked at Twitter.app, and it's actually the same. I suppose I could add it to my Login Items myself, but I never really log out anyway, and if I'm forced to for some reason, OS X is pretty good about getting me back to where I was.
No, I'm familiar with how retail and selling in general work, and I'm a happy Prime user. What I'm saying is that there are a lot better things you can spend your money on to lure people in to your store than AAA game development. Any or all of the things you mentioned would be good, for example. That's why we see retailers do that stuff, yes. What we don't see is retailers making exclusive AAA games to lure people in to their stores. Hell, not even Valve do that.
This part I mostly agree with, actually. As I said above, Phil already has a bunch of AAA teams, working on a bunch of AAA projects. There's no sense in flushing all of that money away now that it's already been spent, so may as well use these projects to lure more folks in to the new store. And I've no doubt that these games will indeed lure more users to the store. My only question is whether or not W10 and Bone users combined will spend enough to sustain the continued development of these games. QB is coming to W10, and that's great, because Bone alone couldn't even justify QB1 much less ensure QB2, but does adding W10 actually ensure a QB2? It'll certainly help, but looking at traditional PC revenue share for games of this sort, I'm skeptical this will really alter the equation greatly.
I sometimes feel like I'm the only one not forgetting that. He said gaming was important to mobile. He didn't even say it was important to PC, actually. So I'm really not sure where people are getting, "So obviously, consoles aren't going anywhere," from that. He said they need to make Candy Crush and Trivia Crack, and that was pretty much it. =/
Roller coasters are exciting and unique and tons of fun, but they're also ridiculously expensive to build and maintain, and while people are eager to ride, nobody wants to spend $100 a pop to do so. That means it's really hard to make money in the roller coaster business; best you can reasonably hope for is to collect enough money that you at least break even. So those are the AAA exclusive games in our analogy; expensive and exciting, but not necessarily super profitable.
So now you're bringing joy to millions, which is great, but you still don't really have much of a business. Sure, you charge admission to get in the gate for the day, but as expensive as a ticket is, it really mostly just covers the costs of building and maintaining the rides themselves. So you buy a plastic souvenir cup for a nickel, pay someone a dime to fill it with 3¢ worth of soda, and sell it for $7. People buy it not because it's so delicious or just a great bargain, but rather because they're thirsty and they're not gonna leave the park just to go home and get a drink of water. Concessions and souvenirs are the third-party games in our analogy; they're the real source of the platform holder's income, because the product costs them effectively nothing, making it pure profit. They just maintain the coasters and let the real money earn itself.
And we can actually take our analogy a bit further. Through the magic of speed-pass technology, we can actually track individual users throughout the park, and see who rides which rides. Sure enough, we can clearly see that only certain punters are really interested in the steel coasters, while others focus primarily on the woodies. Similarly, most users avoid coasters that go upside-down, but there are some who seem to ride little else. We even have a couple of weirdos that just ride the bumper cars all day, mostly with the other weirdos. Then the wise members of SalesGAF come along and examine the receipts, nod knowingly, and say, "See? These roller coasters get all of the attention, but nobody really cares about them; even the most popular one was ridden by less than a third of the people who paid to get in. It's pretty clear that everyone is actually here for the over-priced, poorly mixed fountain drinks; they attach at like 90%, son, and that's the same no matter whose park we look at."
Oh, so you are always logged in to Live? That actually makes more sense to me; I figured it'd be integrated like iCloud, GameCenter, etc. where you just set up your account, and it tries to make itself as available as it can. Like, I'm pretty sure I can receive iMessages even when the app itself isn't running.
They're certainly going to need to tread lightly, yes. Windows is still dominant, but it doesn't have the stranglehold on the market it had in years past. Someone posted that fanfic saying Windows has a 90% share, but if true, that's actually a pretty significant drop from where they sat a few years ago, and even more troublesome for MS, if 10% of people aren't using Windows, that means that way more than 10% realize it's an option, and, "There are no other options," has always been the cornerstone of Microsoft's successes.
Err, it was only when the governments of the world stepped in and forced MS to stop abusing their Windows monopoly that IE started to lose share…
thatsnothowitworks.gif
thatsnothowanyofthisworks.gif
You could be surprised. If we know anything : Microsoft is currently run by very (very) smart people.
But damn, give me Forza 6 for PC in 1080/60 with better aliasing and I would take it without saying a single word.
Well.....
http://www.windowscentral.com/forza-motorsport-6-and-gears-war-4-rumored-also-be-coming-windows-10
I would not take it as anything remotely close to confirmation, it's merely a rumor but it sounds plausible enough.
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. 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).
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!
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.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What is stopping them from offering PC versions of their games on their own PSN Web Store which you can just purchase from there? I would not be shocked if they ever made a lite PSN client if they ever had to, since an official PS4 remote play app for Windows is in the works. They did make clients for their SOE games. However, their gaming division is booming, so there is not a pressing need I suppose.
Some people don't realize how much connectivity one has within the W10 + Xbox platform. It's funny when I go to the app and it shows that I'm on Xbox on 3 devices (phone, pc, and xbox). I can see what my friends are doing no matter the device (obviously on PC I won't know wh exactly they are doing...) and still party chat and stuff just as if it was a xbox. You really take it for granted and don't realize how good that is until you do something like you described with SFV or RL.
Nothing is stopping Sony from doing the same, Windows is an open platform. I actually hope that they do. It's better for gamers.
There isn't anything stopping them, much like there's never been anything stopping MS from creating a DS,3DS,PSP,Vita competitor. They just aren't bothered to, and likely see it as being more work to establish than is worthwhile. If they already had a platform with hundreds of millions of users, then they likely would try leveraging PlayStation there as well (well, they did try PlayStation Mobile at one point I guess...).
Even if the PlayStation brand were performing poorly, in most cases they'd just get out of gaming (like they've gotten out of countless other sectors in recent years) rather than try to establish it in enemy territory. I mean... even Valve got spooked into creating Steam OS as a result of their worries about being reliant on WIndows... and unlike Sony, MS didn't get into gaming with the explicit intention of blocking Valve's progress.
They are making preparations for the future to expand beyond the somewhat restricted pool that is available to consoles though. That's basically what PS Now represents. A move to being able to access PlayStation games without having to actually sell a PlayStation console first.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Their IP's are way too valuable, in retrospect to "just get out of gaming". They would just downsize and go third party again, and not worry about hardware R&D.
And well yeah, all 3 console makers want to expand and have 'gaming as a service' like Valve and iOS/Android. The foundations and slow transitions are in place.
And well yeah, all 3 console makers want to expand and have 'gaming as a service' like Valve and iOS/Android. The foundations and slow transitions are in place.
mejin
Member
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.
Similar threads
- Locked