The Future Of The Xbox Brand

What business model shift(s) do you see MS doing within the next 5-6 years (select all that apply)?

  • Phasing out XBL Gold

    Votes: 68 62.4%
  • Reducing number of Day 1 1P releases into GamePass

    Votes: 22 20.2%
  • Project Keystone releases

    Votes: 34 31.2%
  • GamePass loopholes ($1 conversions, free deals, MS Rewards) removed

    Votes: 60 55.0%
  • Native ports of all 1P games to Sony & Nintendo platforms Day 1

    Votes: 9 8.3%
  • Xbox rebranded/reclassified as a computer device instead of a games console

    Votes: 6 5.5%
  • Full native Windows support on Xbox devices

    Votes: 15 13.8%
  • Xbox devices priced higher (similar to OEM PCs)

    Votes: 6 5.5%
  • Curated versions of GP for Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic, Google, Apple etc. platforms

    Votes: 34 31.2%

  • Total voters
    109
  • Poll closed .
TL;DR

I think you forgot to mention one more thing OP, and that is Microsoft are finally taking ARM more seriously..


If they can make SDK's universal with their UWP, DirectX12Ultimate for both ARM and x86, perhaps you can make future games like Gears 6, Forza Horizon 6, etc run NATIVELY on both x86 and ARM. I know windows mobile/phone died, but perhaps foldable mini notebook like windows 11 on ARM where you can make phone calls, run apps, play games with 5G/Wifi6E would be awesome. Kind of like Windows Switch i guess.

Also with project Voltera, here is hoping that x86 native apps can be converted to ARM native apps. Apple still hasnt managed to get third party software developers to convert to native ARM with rosetta.
 
Last I checked, XBO still existed and GamePass has been around since 2017.

You're trying to muddy the issue with long pointless tangents that are completely irrelevant.

Gamepass wasn't at 10 million until 2020, it hit 25 million+ in jan of this year 2022 (trying to reduce that to covid lockdowns is dumb and doesn't line up with the timeline as those subs weren't frontloaded), that's a 15+million jump in less than 1.5 years. Without the new consoles being in supply enough to keep that kind of momentum going it's going to contract, the fact that there was still a 28% increase is still huge. The fact you keep trying to talk your way out of but can't avoid is that Gamepass isn't the issue for consoles subs, it's the amount of consoles on shelves for consumers to buy, which then leads to some being incentivized to sub to Gamepass. Not the imaginary reason you created.

You're being so dense it hurts. $299 IS a mainstream price for price-conscious mainstream and casual gamers in the customer pool TODAY,

You're brain isn't working well, $199 is still the mainstream price point. Just because the PS4 and Xbox One (outside of some late fire sales) didn't reach $199 doesn't mean that $199 is no longer the consumer price point. Both consoles would have sold even more if they actually hit it (which those late Xbox One fire sales showed) so you/re literally making shit up.

It's also irrelevant like most of your post, because Phil and two engineers who worked and planned the S, and likely others, all gave at launch and right after statements on what the S is targeting, it was not trying to sell "millions and millions" at a "mass consumer" price point "early" which btw isn't $299, it's $199, and all expected the X to be ahead, and the S to "eventually" over take it by the end of the year because they knew the compromises made and what kind of base would be going for the S at it's launch price.

You're just making stuff up, you still haven't posted proof about the imaginary "mission statement" from anyone involved with the S. Because it simply doesn't exist. The Series S which you said is underselling, based on no evidence, by extrapolating imaginary numbers (or made up ones long debunked may as well used VGchartz with the stubbornness here despite you being the only one continuing to try and use the fake 13.8) to make it seem like the Series S is underperforming yet you have not even one margin of 1% evidence to this claim.

It's all based on you're false belief Microsot were trying to get the droes of millions of gamers to buy the Series S that would come later in the gen, that was never the plan and the truth is you will never be able to proove it because there's already a lot of proof already AGAINST that very idea out of the words of multiple people. Quit the fanboyism.

You literally just described a lot of the very same mainstream & casual gaming customers out there

No I didn't actually. The casuals that would buy the Wii, some of those groups aren't in that description. Nor the ones who brought the 360 at $199 outside a certain amount. The part you can't comprehend is two fold

1.It's not the main platform
2. It's $299 not $199

If the S makes great sales this month out of the ordinary it will be because you could get it in some places for as low as $199, although most of the deals for most of the month were still above that.

But to Phil's statement...okay, so you just repeat what he said. So what?

You can tell how bad your argument is with you pretending I only quoted Phil in that post. There's also another thread were I and another user posted more sources. You're whole conspiracy is a sham.
 

graywolf323

Member
they're definitely going to close the loopholes eventually once they've decided the growth phase is over (look at every single other sub service ever)

I don't think they'll stop with 1st party games coming Day 1 since that's the entire selling point even if it ends up being a bit of a loss leader, I could see the number of third-party games coming day 1 drop (and we already kinda have seen that, most day 1 releases this year have been smaller indie stuff I believe?)
 
E Eddie-Griffin 😆😂🤣

GamePass growth on console has slowed down. Phil Spencer, your lord and savior himself, has said this. If the reason for the slowdown were as simple as you ascribe it to be, he maybe would've mentioned that at some point after bringing up the slowdown. You know, common sense.

Ampere's numbers were not fake. They are a reputable market analysis firm, magnitudes more than VGChartz. They provide 13.8 million in their June report. Question is whether sell-through or sell-in. Microsoft posted 63.7 million combined XBO & Series S/X install base size in a post from September. XBO is said to be around 50 million. Statista numbers give 50.54 million XBO. Subtract that from 63.7 million, you get something like 13.16 million sold-through. Question is, what data was MS reporting on time-wise, was it at that point of the post being made or from fiscal results from the start of their FY 2022 (June 1, 2022)?

I gave benefit of doubt, assumed it as 13.16 million sold-through (extrapolated) by point of June 2022. Still tracking ahead of 360 sold-through after its first 17 months (11.6 million), ahead of XBO sold-through its first 17 months. Flat Series X/S supply over summer months. Console sales typically slow down during the summer. Realistic estimate (IMO) for sales between June and NOW for Series to be roughly 15 million - 15.5 million sold-through (that's about 2.4 million sold-through globally in past five months).

Have always said this was my opinion of Series sold-through amounts, based on info I can find from sources, mixed with my own projections. You have absolutely failed in proving why my estimates are invalid as an opinion on Series sold-through. But I can easily read you, and the reason is because the number isn't high enough for your fanboy thought process. Oh well, so sad.

If you've got nothing new to say WRT this specific aspect of the sales topic, then move on. I'm playing fine music over here on repeat but you're two rooms over with a door you can't figure out how to open, unable to hear or listen.

they're definitely going to close the loopholes eventually once they've decided the growth phase is over (look at every single other sub service ever)

I don't think they'll stop with 1st party games coming Day 1 since that's the entire selling point even if it ends up being a bit of a loss leader, I could see the number of third-party games coming day 1 drop (and we already kinda have seen that, most day 1 releases this year have been smaller indie stuff I believe?)

Yeah, Day 1 this year has been relegated to indies outside of Plague Tale: Requiem and Persona 5 Royal, the former a higher-tier AA game and the latter technically a remaster of a 5-year old game.

"Day 1" for GamePass going forward might be a mix of some games genuinely being Day 1 available (Pentiment, for example), and others having some 1-week (or maybe 1-month) initial early access retail availability for preorders before then going into the service, kind of like what Forza Horizon 5 did. 3P Day 1 games will probably continue to be the smaller indie titles or maybe bigger titles that are looking really rocky on preorders & sales projections. Only exception there might be Sega games given their strategic partnership with Azure and the trickle-down benefits that has for GamePass, but most Sega games are not big sellers these days anyway outside of Sonic and Persona (Atlus).

But, maybe that changes if the ABK deal falls apart? It leaves a lot of money for Microsoft to maybe secure bigger Day 1 GamePass releases. The fearmongering journalists like Jez Corden or Ryan are doing, MS suddenly turning around and buying up "all of Japan" or whatever nonsense, is never going to happen if the deal gets shut down. 3P partners are not suddenly going to leave Sony or Nintendo ecosystems, or their customers & fans there for that matter. But it could lead to MS getting some bigger 3P releases as Day 1 in GamePass again, which I think a lot of us expected would have been the case this year following 2021 but no dice.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
This has to be a satire. Anyone who thinks this, needs to touch grass. PS will only get some of activision games. Same with nintendo. But not all.

IKR. Xbox out of business would be the instant result and headline from that, LOL.

They bring in a lot of $ from their platform, what reason could they possibly have for scrapping it to become a third-party software publisher? Certainly not revenue growth because even the largest third-party publishers can't touch MS's gaming revenue numbers.

The games not coming to GP day one thing is relatively silly as well, when that is the primary reason the service has been successful.
 
Last edited:
IKR. Xbox out of business would be the instant result and headline from that, LOL.

They bring in a lot of $ from their platform, what reason could they possibly have for scrapping it to become a third-party software publisher? Certainly not revenue growth because even the largest third-party publishers can't touch MS's gaming revenue numbers.

The games not coming to GP day one thing is relatively silly as well, when that is the primary reason the service has been successful.

The revenue increases MS have seen the past 2-3 years are largely due to increased peripheral sales and assimilating acquired publisher revenue (such as Zenimax) into the Xbox division's alongside continued multiplatform support for IP such as Minecraft. Even with that, the revenue Xbox brings in is nothing compared to Microsoft's core pillars (Azure, Windows, Office) and their profit margins could be significantly improved by adjusting the console hardware model to operate more as a computer device line, like the Surface devices in a sense.

The revenue they would potentially lose from reduced 30% 3P sales and MTX cuts would be made up by being able to reduce production costs and R&D on Xbox devices, classifying Xbox consoles as computer devices and selling them with profit margins, enabling expanded Day 1 multiplatform support for their game, enabling full Windows functionality on Xbox devices, and other changes mentioned earlier in the thread.

It alongside designing curated versions of GamePass acceptable and compatible with Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Amazon & Google hardware/software ecosystem devices would probably also make it a lot easier for them to get approval for future gaming acquisitions. Since they would effectively not be directly competing with Sony & Nintendo any further on the traditional console business model (you still get Xbox-branded PC NUC-style devices however running Windows) and would be seen as a complying 3P publisher of cloud content & services on other software & services ecosystems like Google Play & Apple Arcade, that would probably nullify a lot of the concerns with regulators when it comes to them and acquisitions.

Because as you've clearly seen this week, the way Microsoft operates and enables their current model is probably going to ruin the main means they wanted to expand their gaming revenue and foothold in both the console and mobile gaming markets, and whether you feel that's fair or not, it doesn't change the fact that's what the reality is for them. You're still thinking about this as a classic-minded Xbox console fan and I understand that, but it's not seeing the forest from the trees, IMO.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
The revenue they would potentially lose from reduced 30% 3P sales and MTX cuts would be made up by being able to reduce production costs and R&D on Xbox devices, classifying Xbox consoles as computer devices and selling them with profit margins, enabling expanded Day 1 multiplatform support for their game, enabling full Windows functionality on Xbox devices, and other changes mentioned earlier in the thread.

So, like I said, a sad wet dream from a Sony fanboy. :messenger_winking_tongue:

There is just no realistic reason for them to concede the console market to Sony and Nintendo even if they are trying to grow beyond it. The console space is still insanely lucrative, you hold your place there (while continuing to try and gain share) and then grow outside and in addition to that. Also, they've already confirmed they are working on the next iterations of Xbox hardware.
 
Last edited:
So, like I said, a sad wet dream from a Sony fanboy. :messenger_winking_tongue:

There is just no realistic reason for them to concede the console market to Sony and Nintendo even if they are trying to grow beyond it. The console space is still insanely lucrative, you hold your place there (while continuing to try and gain share) and then grow outside and in addition to that. Also, they've already confirmed they are working on the next iterations of Xbox hardware.

You just stated a paradox. If they're trying to grow beyond the traditional console market, why would they want to anchor themselves in said traditional console market, especially if their growth ambitions seem to be in wanting to do things that create natural conflict among two major players whose ecosystems Microsoft wants to expand into?

They want to go "beyond console gaming" but actively inhibit themselves from doing so in part because they still operate on a traditional console business model that puts them in direct conflict with Sony and Nintendo, and want to sidestep the typical 3P publisher fee on other platforms like Apple & Google yet have no problem providing Valve a cut of Xbox 1P sales on Steam (partly because MS knows Steam requires Windows, although Valve would like to change that with Steam OS).

Those are examples of MS wanting to have their cake & eat it too, but that's creating a lot of issues for their growth potential in the ways it seems they want to actually grow. Microsoft's in a position where they are one of the few companies in the world that can both operate a full-functional traditional hardware console business model (with all the costs that incurs) AND a full-functioning services-orientated business model (with all the costs THAT incurs), simultaneously, and could find themselves in a position where they're the only company in the world able to do so such with any amount of highly valuable IP, tech and employee resources.

Why do you think the ABK deal is looking to be blocked? I can bet you it's because regulators who know a lot more on this stuff than you or I can see exactly what I just mentioned in the paragraph above, and piece things together. They're probably also wondering exactly what market opportunities MS took advantage of in the past to enable core pillars to be such big revenue drivers so as they can incur operating costs doing both business models WRT gaming simultaneously in near-perpetuity and not be in a position to need to have the gaming division generate sufficient profit of its own (the way a company lacking the revenue pillars of MS would need in order to continue that type of business). They're probably wondering if acts that could be considered predatory pricing have already been enacted by MS and the Xbox division, driving further concerns.

Virtually none of these concerns would be issues if the Xbox division wasn't operating on the traditional console business model and Microsoft weren't looking to sidestep the type of royalty cuts to companies like Apple & Google for services like GamePass on their platforms, that MS requires from 3P publishers themselves on Xbox platforms. If they had a business model that sidestepped those problems, that didn't result in them making certain decisions that could be used as examples of contradictions of past promises with other acquisitions...then I think they'd have a much easier time getting acquisitions like ABK approved and expanding Azure (through GamePass) as a backend to new 3P gaming clients quite easier, too.

Xbox as a console brand is acting as a roadblock for Microsoft's larger gaming ambitions and you're too stuck in 2012 to see that. But hey maybe other people at Xbox & MS are the same way, who knows at this point. I'd also suggest re-reading my posts because some of you seem to think my idea is for Microsoft to stop making Xbox hardware: that is not what I ever said. You still get Xbox "consoles", it's just that now they operate on an OEM computer business model. That means they run Windows. That means MS doesn't lock 1P content to just Xbox devices (or, they actually could, it's just those would now be PC exclusives. So in a way they can still cheese having exclusives, they just aren't branding Xbox as a console anymore or operating on that business model). That means they're finally able to sell Xboxes at decent profit margins. That means they don't have to bleed as much cash in unit production or R&D costs (there would still be R&D of course, the idea being wanting new Xboxes to be suitable gaming boxes equivalent to whatever new PlayStation's coming, performance-wise, but having PC-like expandability, running Windows and liberating things from being locked down to Xbox storefront or GamePass).

This has nothing to do with being pro-Sony or pro-Nintendo. If anything, it's more pro-MS/pro-Xbox than some of the people who brown-nose them at every single turn.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
You can have bad fantasies about anything but it doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely zero valid reasons why they can't maintain their console business while expanding on PC and the cloud (remember if they don't care about the console space they have zero concern about the PS or Switch user bases either).

As both MS (via Minecraft and potentially CoD) and Sony (potentially with the Bungie titles and MLB) have already shown is that it's possible to operate a console business and still publish some titles (but never all) on rival hardware. One doesn't preclude the other, but a certain amount of software does need to remain platform exclusive to drive interest. And when you cut R&D budgets on the console you also lose all the benefits of the console hardware (namely reduced build costs and the low retail price) and everything that goes along with that. Again, for zero reason. Especially when you consider that the fact that while the individual hardware sales may result in losses, the 30% cut they throwaway with the bath water in your scenario easily pays that back and then some.

You could make the same silly argument about PS. They could make these same moves to push on with their PC business and release everything on Nintendo and Xbox, but that would be just as stupid a move for them, so obviously it will never happen.

Also, having more than one product segment is hardly a paradox, happens all the time.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom