Support NeoGAF

[StereoVsn]

Coincidentally, a certain well-liked executive took control of Xbox at that time.

Phil Spencer is directly responsible for the lack of a late stage revival for Xbox One and the horrible launch of the Xbox Series consoles.

He was director of Xbox game studios before that. He has been responsible for most of the current shit show since X360 days when they pivoted from normal games, closed studios and went heavy on Kinect.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

There are so many people with a vested economic interest in the console wars.

Imagine you want to be a game media company and you limit yourself to a specific platform. Why would you do that? Inherently you're limiting your audience, but by filling a niche, you think you'll have more success.

Doesn't that inherently mean that you have an incentive to grade games better and mislead your readers?

People like Colt Eastwood will try to pivot at some point, but it'll be a hard one. When that community naturally shrinks, he's out of a living. You think he is on a Microsoft pension? No. He's not. That's where you're starting to see the really ridiculous takes.

You have people like him who are doing this for a job and then you have people like Senjutsu Sage who are true believers and fanboys, who maybe hope to parlay that into a career, but have no real chance.

Then you have the IGNs and the DFs who like to play people against each other in order to get clicks and views. DFs views will plummet if they end up having to compare PC and PS5. Like no shit sherlocks.

Their GT7 vs Forza video that just happens to ignore all the other racing games? Has 270K views in 3 days. The Avatar PC vs Console video has 172K in 2 days. They didn't want a PS5 Pro because it renders much of the dispute meaningless between the base consoles.

E3 dying should tell everyone that the console wars are coming to a close. This isn't 1995. Times change.

 

[Crayon]

Even though they will say bs like console sales don’t matter just because Phil Spencer threw the towel live in 4K, these minions draw their power from community and that community is the Xbox console community. Attempts throughout the years to try and co opt Steam’s community have failed hard.

If I buy Fallout on Steam/PS/Nintendo, I’m not a part of the Xbox community, just like I’m not a part of the EA community when I buy Jedi Survivor or FIFA.

At the end of the day the fear here is the loss of the community, the audience these content creators speak to, because then Xbox would become a brand in the same sense Ubisoft is a brand. There’s no Ubisoft community. So what’s happening is a lot of these content creators and social media participators are getting their feathers ruffled because for years the promise was that the community would get larger, buoyed by a promising and dream filled 12 months prior to the start of the gen, but hat has slowly but steadily turned into a nightmare, even though for a moment there the mere news of the ABK acquisition made them feel like the promised land had arrived.

It’s all about what keeps a community together. It’s why Starfield is still such a relevant topic in Xbox podcasts, they simply refuse to let go of the time when that game was the great unifier, the great white hope that would kick start the gold rush.

There’s real fear that Xbox could actually say fuck it and start publishing their games on PlayStation, because that would be the death of the community.

Valid. I think that community is skewing older because to a 15 year old, an xbox is an imitation playstation. On top of that, the community has become captured and nine out of ten posts you read from "the community" are diehards "putting in the work", no matter what they have to defend, and posting their brains out spamming company sanctioned excuses.

Those ones will like whatever ms does and they would definitely like a truly high end console, even if it only selld 5 million in 5 years. That would become the most important thing about gaming real quick. While they would hate to see the games come out on playstation, that would... outwardly at least... become the least important thing. So that community could rally around a real win and real bragging rights on the hardware itself. As for ps users playing the games, the pain will be blunted by the reality that other people playing the games really doesn't hurt them.

So it's a shakeup but ms does not have to stop with the evangelistic programming for that core base and it will be a lot easier to claim they are winning in what counts. The console is more important to the games anyway lol. The community may even strengthen in ways by attracting people who are not zealots because now there would at least be an actual reason to be there. It almost certainly would not get bigger but I think they'd enjoy the community more, whether they are console warring at the moment or just enjoying their favorite platform.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

What will Xbox sales look like next year? We have Switch 2 hitting along with PS5 Pro. If Xbox Series sales tanked this year with their big hitter Starfield on top of Forza Motorsport, what does MSFT think sales will look like in a year where Switch 2 and PS5 Pro will be their main competition? I don't even see how they stand a chance, honestly, but I hope I'm wrong because I love Xbox. With as many studios under their roster as they currently have, there is just no excuse for their abysmal lack of great games. In any other world, management would be to blame but in MSFT's situation that doesn't seem to be the case. I think a top-down redo of the management staff needs to happen ASAP starting with Mr. Spencer.

You're not wrong. There is absolutely nothing that is going to significantly improve XBS sales in 2024. Price alone isn't going to cut it.

Worse games lineup, and significantly more hardware competition.

I expect PS5 to probably be down next year as well, but that depends on how steep the price cuts are AND how the PS5 Pro performs AND how well Nintendo executes the Switch successor.

Quantity of studios doesn't matter nearly as much as quality of studio and the quality of that studio's IP or ability to generate IP.

Look at Insomniac, after Spyro they really struggled to generate IP, but you give them access to Spider-Man, now they're a top studio in the industry.

How many studios does Microsoft have that Sony would trade Insomniac for? Probably none right? And I think most people would put Santa Monica and Naughty Dog equal to or greater than Insomniac. Would you trade Polyphony Digital for Playground Games or Turn 10?

You look at the studios sony didn't buy and most of them are better than Microsoft's at this point. Which is interesting being Ninja Theory is probably one of their best studios, but would have been one of Sony's worst. But you look at Quantic Dream, Supermassive, Sanzaru, and Ready at Dawn, and these are all better studios than your average Microsoft studio.

You look at the tiers of the studios Microsoft has and the timeline for their game releases and the genres that their games are in and they have a big problem.

 

[Moriarty1889]

Xbox cant even get proper games out this generation for the series consoles but let’s go ahead and jump start a new one…………with zero games again eh? more controllers and hardware options than actual new AAA IP and now even more studios that AAA games. Xbox is a total disaster at this point all thanks to Phil Spencer and his Gamepass above everything agenda. The Xbox console brand has been ruined because of gamepass being pushed more than the actual console as well as Phil telling everyone they don’t need to buy an xbox console to play their games. Mattrick may have been a moron but at least he released games and had a goal to sell as many consoles as possible to build an actual console base………the whole point of console gaming every gen.

 

[TheUndeadGamer]

Without any direct competition, do you think folks would pick up an Xbox? I'm starting to wonder if they might not. It seems like they're just not into what MS has got to offer.

I agree. I just think the brand is tarnished. I think whatever they do they won’t get out of the hole they dig themselves in.
Hopefully I’m wrong.

 

[Baki]

You're not wrong. There is absolutely nothing that is going to significantly improve XBS sales in 2024. Price alone isn't going to cut it.

Worse games lineup, and significantly more hardware competition.

I expect PS5 to probably be down next year as well, but that depends on how steep the price cuts are AND how the PS5 Pro performs AND how well Nintendo executes the Switch successor.

Quantity of studios doesn't matter nearly as much as quality of studio and the quality of that studio's IP or ability to generate IP.

Look at Insomniac, after Spyro they really struggled to generate IP, but you give them access to Spider-Man, now they're a top studio in the industry.

How many studios does Microsoft have that Sony would trade Insomniac for? Probably none right? And I think most people would put Santa Monica and Naughty Dog equal to or greater than Insomniac. Would you trade Polyphony Digital for Playground Games or Turn 10?

You look at the studios sony didn't buy and most of them are better than Microsoft's at this point. Which is interesting being Ninja Theory is probably one of their best studios, but would have been one of Sony's worst. But you look at Quantic Dream, Supermassive, Sanzaru, and Ready at Dawn, and these are all better studios than your average Microsoft studio.

You look at the tiers of the studios Microsoft has and the timeline for their game releases and the genres that their games are in and they have a big problem.

It's going to be tough 2024. By the time ABK games are added to GP, and the next COD launches day 1 on GP, PS5 will be close to 70-75M shipped. For this gen, that means most people had picked up their console of choice, and that means remainder of people will likely just opt for the most popular console.

I think ABK games on GP will be a big moment for MS and Xbox but might be too late in the gen for Xbox Series consoles. They might see good adoption on a streaming stick and Xcloud, but I think core console sales will be tough because the majority had already chosen their platform, and the need for a 2nd platform is small when the libraries are so similar. Thats why I believe the rumours that Xbox will start a new gen early in 2026. It's hard to save this current gen.

 

[Ozzie666]

This guy doesn’t believe in generations then. I thought the series S was bad enough, imagine having to release future products that support the S and consoles like the one. Or am I totally misunderstanding all of this.

 

[SimTourist]

The problem for MS is that games take a long time to develop and are by far the biggest factor in the success of a console. Diving into AMD's used parts bin every few years is easy and quick. When Sony had problems with the PS3 they managed to come back because fully featured games could be made in 2-3 years, so from about 2008 onwards and right up until 2013 the console was flooded with great games, multiple games from a single developer. So they've built their reputation that holds on to this day even if game output is much weaker than PS3 or even PS4. Not much is coming out of Sony studios these days but the reputation is still strong. MS doesn't have that trust and reputation to lean on and games take 5-10 years to make, so at best you might get one game from a developer in the entire generation. Plus it seems like all studios under MS control are suffering from mismanagement and dev hell. Why is Hellblade 2 taking 7 years to make? Why is Perfect Dark aiming for some nonsense AAAA budget when it's an unknown and niche IP that doesn't hold any value today? Make a more reasonable first entry and go from there.

 

[nick776]

The problem for MS is that games take a long time to develop and are by far the biggest factor in the success of a console. Diving into AMD's used parts bin every few years is easy and quick. When Sony had problems with the PS3 they managed to come back because fully featured games could be made in 2-3 years, so from about 2008 onwards and right up until 2013 the console was flooded with great games, multiple games from a single developer. So they've built their reputation that holds on to this day even if game output is much weaker than PS3 or even PS4. Not much is coming out of Sony studios these days but the reputation is still strong. MS doesn't have that trust and reputation to lean on and games take 5-10 years to make, so at best you might get one game from a developer in the entire generation. Plus it seems like all studios under MS control are suffering from mismanagement and dev hell. Why is Hellblade 2 taking 7 years to make? Why is Perfect Dark aiming for some nonsense AAAA budget when it's an unknown and niche IP that doesn't hold any value today? Make a more reasonable first entry and go from there.

Everything you say is precisely what I'm asking--7 years for Hellblade 2, 6 years for the "Forza Motorsport" that seems worse than earlier entries, etc. Surely management is the problem, can anyone else think of any other legitimate reason? If developers have problems that must be overcome (problems that lead to delays), it's the job of management (one way or another) to help them overcome them and speed things up. Instead, games like Redfall ACTUALLY RELEASED. I think that speaks volumes for the mindset at MSFT.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Everything you say is precisely what I'm asking--7 years for Hellblade 2, 6 years for the "Forza Motorsport" that seems worse than earlier entries, etc. Surely management is the problem, can anyone else think of any other legitimate reason? If developers have problems that must be overcome (problems that lead to delays), it's the job of management (one way or another) to help them overcome them and speed things up. Instead, games like Redfall ACTUALLY RELEASED. I think that speaks volumes for the mindset at MSFT.

Your "solution" is something that the industry can't do, which would be to hire more people and significantly increase the price of games.

People are already complaining about this generation going from 60 to 70.

It used to be a team of 100 was a really big project now you have AAA games with 400+ people working on them and in many cases 1000+ with contractors and such.

I think the open world is something games could get rid of and the idea that games have to be 30+ hours could also help, but the reality is the market really dictates all of that.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. HD games set the industry back and 4K games have set it back even further.

Salaries have increased, the amount of detail has increased, the size and scope of games has increased, the pressure not to crunch has increased.

It was easier to pivot back in the day.

 

[twilo99]

No need to spend $billions on designing, making and selling consoles.

I think they are on track to make 70 of them billions in profit this year so why not spend some of it on R&D and make a few gaming boxes just in case? Doesn’t seem like a that big deal of deal..

 

[StereoVsn]

I think they are on track to make 70 of them billions in profit this year so why not spend some of it on R&D and make a few gaming boxes just in case? Doesn’t seem like a that big deal of deal..

Ms as a whole is supremely profitable. The question is if Nadella will keep throwing those $billions at Xbox for completely unclear returns. Their hardware isn’t selling and it’s getting worse in what should be best year for console’s life.

So yeah , they can easily afford it, but why bother? They can keep the cash, dump the main hardware, produce a streaming cloud box and make cash publishing on Nintendo and Sony platforms as well.

I don’t think that’s going to happen, but it would be pretty logical progression from the current situation.

 

[Topher]

I think they are on track to make 70 of them billions in profit this year so why not spend some of it on R&D and make a few gaming boxes just in case? Doesn’t seem like a that big deal of deal..

I'd say it is pretty big deal for stock holders to see their profits diverted from successful segments of the company into a product that has struggled to compete for a decade.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Honestly, the insane amount of copium and mental gymnastics evident in people like Jez & Co, would make people like Zalker & Colt Eastwood look almost unbelievably sane in comparison, it's a bizarre sight to behold, all the while making Phil Spencer's statement of "Not wanting to be outdone in price or power" look like absolute meme material, while simultaneously making it evident of how fargone some people, who are too much into their console war fantasies, have gotten. This literally makes it seem like they(Microsoft), don't want to stand behind their statements and promises.

If anything, the logic of choosing to potentially launch a next gen console prior to your competition is flawed on so many different levels, and goes against Microsoft's philosophy of "not to be outdone in... Blah, blah, blah" and all those empty statements they've made initially. So, ok, fine, you've launched your new gen box, because you didn't want to insert an enhanced Series X and torture devs even more, by giving them a third console hardware config to work with and learn to optimise for.

You now have a one year headstart in that scenario. The downside? Your competitor can burst through your wooden defences and put out a faster, more powerful box out the door the following year, that could probably be a more tempting purchase, essentially leaving you at a disadvantage yet again. And that's not even the worst part of it all. What are devs going to use as a baseline, since the PS5 will also be in the way? What are devs going to prioritise? The more powerful console, or the more popular one? The answer is already obvious, they'll prioritise the one with the larger install base, since that's where most of the money is and use that as the baseline. Why go that route, only to have your competitor curb stomp & humiliate you a year later with a more powerful box, potentially at the same price? It literally just doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. It goes against even their own train of thought.

They want to one-up their competitor, only to get one-uped themselves a year later, shooting themselves in the foot in the most outrageous way possible? Wtf even is that logic, where did all the confidence they had in the weeks and months leading up to launch in 2020 go? This is a cautionary tale to never underestimate your competition like Xbox did with PlayStation, simply because they had a Trillion dollar megacorp backing them. Especially since their competition (Sony) has been in that business and perfecting their craft longer than they did and their gaming market share is growing not shrinking.

That's some circular logic there for sure. And what happens in this scenario when MS jumps out again after the PS release a year later? Is Sony not doing the same thing you are bemoaning there in that situation? A year isn't doing much for you as far as technological advances go at any particular price point, this isn't 20 years ago. At similar price points a 2027 box isn't doing much more than a 2026 box can.

The PS5 Pro will be absolutely meaningless to the market if the rumored specs are to be believed, as was the PS4 Pro and X1X. PS5 will continue to dominate the market in base form. MS moving to a quicker update cycle on hardware wouldn't have anything to do with the Pro, as they've talked about that several times before.

Launching late can be good for the smaller players (Nintendo, Sega the one time they were successful), and that's really what we are talking about here (MS launching their answer to Pro later than the Pro, and their answer to the PS6 a couple years after it). You can hit the performance target a little easier which helps with lower sales volume while also ensuring that you have the more refined option in place by the time the hardware is truly being utilized (the first couple years of PS6 would be marred in cross-gen anyway). If MS moved forward this way, I don't think they would actively push a power narrative to begin with.

Sony would be leading the technology charge, MS would be letting them lead because the cutting edge is expensive. But MS would still get the benefit of being the best performer when they did answer.

 

[IllegalLemon]

That's some circular logic there for sure. And what happens in this scenario when MS jumps out again after the PS release a year later? Is Sony not doing the same thing you are bemoaning there in that situation? A year isn't doing much for you as far as technological advances go at any particular price point, this isn't 20 years ago. At similar price points a 2027 box isn't doing much more than a 2026 box can.

The PS5 Pro will be absolutely meaningless to the market if the rumored specs are to be believed, as was the PS4 Pro and X1X. PS5 will continue to dominate the market in base form. MS moving to a quicker update cycle on hardware wouldn't have anything to do with the Pro, as they've talked about that several times before.

To be honest, they can't just tell their fanbase here's a new gen console, only to tell them "fuck you, here's another one" a year later, just because they can't stand their competition being ahead in hardware, it doesn't make sense. Good ol' days with fully custom hardware and exotic soc designs are gone and there's no going back to that, as much of a bummer that is to say. That was what made consoles unique in the first place, now it's just the X86 reference design with a couple of modifications.

 

[Fredrik]

I would say it all depends.

If they launch X6 at the same time GTA6 comes out, meaning in 2025, they might have a chance with people trying to play it on the most powerful system, especially if Microsoft is willing to take a hit on hardware costs.

Not saying it is a great plan, but it is probably their only option if they want to even try and compete at this point.

If they can beat the PS5 Pro on both price and power, that is a different conversation.

Yeah I think they need to take the L and move to a new gen, asap. Go for a powerful new gen console, 1 SKU no S. And if possible sync the launch with GTA6 or some big Microsoft first party game. I wouldn’t mind if Indiana Jones, Perfect Dark, The Elder Scrolls 6, Gears 6, Forza Horizon Japan all moved to next gen.
Every year they try to stay oh the current devices means they’ll lose marketshare. They did a 4 year generation with OG Xbox. Needs to happen again. Just pull the plug.

 

[twilo99]

I'd say it is pretty big deal for stock holders to see their profits diverted from successful segments of the company into a product that has struggled to compete for a decade.

You mean the same stock holders who have seen ~1300% profit on their stock portfolio for the past 10 years while xbox has been on the brink of collapse the whole time? Not sure if they care. Would you care?



I suppose you could argue that those numbers would be even better without xbox, but how marginal would that be?

They will start to care when we go in a nice deep recession and what seems like a parabolic move on a yearly basis takes a break for a few years, but until then, xbox at break even or a slight loss shouldn't be a problem.

Let's see what they do with the Activision profit margin, I think that alone could cover the hardware development costs.

 

[nick776]

Your "solution" is something that the industry can't do, which would be to hire more people and significantly increase the price of games.

People are already complaining about this generation going from 60 to 70.

It used to be a team of 100 was a really big project now you have AAA games with 400+ people working on them and in many cases 1000+ with contractors and such.

I think the open world is something games could get rid of and the idea that games have to be 30+ hours could also help, but the reality is the market really dictates all of that.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. HD games set the industry back and 4K games have set it back even further.

Salaries have increased, the amount of detail has increased, the size and scope of games has increased, the pressure not to crunch has increased.

It was easier to pivot back in the day.

I cannot stand open world games, so I would love it if they went away! I don't play open world games at all.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yeah I think they need to take the L and move to a new gen, asap. Go for a powerful new gen console, 1 SKU no S. And if possible sync the launch with GTA6 or some big Microsoft first party game. I wouldn’t mind if Indiana Jones, Perfect Dark, The Elder Scrolls 6, Gears 6, Forza Horizon Japan all moved to next gen.
Every year they try to stay oh the current devices means they’ll lose marketshare. They did a 4 year generation with OG Xbox. Needs to happen again. Just pull the plug.

Jumping to a new generation quickly has a lot of risk of alienating your core audience who already dropped 500 on a system now deemed useless that never got a killer app.

I think without an aggressive trade in program and an aggressive price, you’re going to face slow adoption rates.

I do think timing it with gta6 is a must though.

I also think that again without significant hardware subsidy you’re looking at setting yourself up poorly against the PS6 in the long run too. If the PS3 hadn’t used the cell, it probably would have mopped the floor with the 360.

 

[Astray]

Jumping to a new generation quickly has a lot of risk of alienating your core audience who already dropped 500 on a system now deemed useless that never got a killer app.

I think without an aggressive trade in program and an aggressive price, you’re going to face slow adoption rates.

I do think timing it with gta6 is a must though.

I also think that again without significant hardware subsidy you’re looking at setting yourself up poorly against the PS6 in the long run too. If the PS3 hadn’t used the cell, it probably would have mopped the floor with the 360.

You also risk being in the warpath of a Nintendo that's trying to push a new Switch.

The crossover in audiences is not a %100, but post-inflation, they both compete for a smaller pot of gamer dollars, and that's not even counting the PS5 Pro entering the fray.

It's a terrible idea on so many fronts imo.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

You also risk being in the warpath of a Nintendo that's trying to push a new Switch.

The crossover in audiences is not a %100, but post-inflation, they both compete for a smaller pot of gamer dollars, and that's not even counting the PS5 Pro entering the fray.

It's a terrible idea on so many fronts imo.

I think it is their only play, but they have to execute. And executing hasn't been their strength lately.

I think losing market share has to be their principle concern right now. It's a hail mary, but the XBS is dead and dying. 2023 was a hard year, but 2024 is going to be even harder.

 

[Astray]

I think it is their only play, but they have to execute. And executing hasn't been their strength lately.

They are unbelievably bad at execution at all levels, it's mind-boggling to me how bad they are considering the amount of money they spend..

 

[Crayon]

I think it is their only play, but they have to execute. And executing hasn't been their strength lately.

I think losing market share has to be their principle concern right now. It's a hail mary, but the XBS is dead and dying. 2023 was a hard year, but 2024 is going to be even harder.

If losing market share is their principle concern, things are not going to go well for them. It pretty much boils down to that is how I feel about it now. This gen was debatable as far as whether or not to gun for playstation again.

Abandoning this one and starting again while PS5 is at it's peak with the intention of gaining market share is a terrible plan. It might be the worst plan. I could see Phil fighting for it. He gets fired up when talking about beating ps compared to half hearted when talking about consoles not being important.

So I'm not surprised if Phil thinks it's a good idea. I would be if somebody doesn't stop him. Just think of Activision alone. That is supposed to be an investment and it was a serious move even for microsoft. Phil is asking to carve a massive amount of their profits out and do damage the reach of all these ip's, because he needs exclusives to beat PlayStation. :/ Sorry, that is absolutely absurd. MS already has to play nice with much larger and more threatening entities than an old Japanese stereo company.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They are unbelievably bad at execution at all levels, it's mind-boggling to me how bad they are considering the amount of money they spend..

I think that is why they're bad.

When you're conditioned that money doesn't matter, you don't often make wise choices. You get the mentality that money can fix your problems. You can sense that in the leaked e-mails, that Microsoft leadership was confident they could spend Sony out of the industry.

If you look at Sony and Nintendo, they've made their way in the industry without having the most money, they've had to manage their resources the best they can.

Sony's decisions have to be multipliers and Nintendo's decisions have to be unique and innovative. Microsoft's decisions don't need to be as well thought out because there aren't as many financial ramifications, but what they do lose is time.

Microsoft can't wait until 2027 or 2028 to release their new console. If this generation ends and Sony has sold 130-140 million units, and they have sold 30-45 million units, there is no repairing that with new hardware. That's a game-over scenario, where GamePass will never grow, it'll just have a really low ceiling. The next Xbox would be doomed to sell less than that. Microsoft isn't in a position where they can assume Sony will just screw up with the PS6. Sony is 4/5 on consoles.

 

[Fredrik]

Jumping to a new generation quickly has a lot of risk of alienating your core audience who already dropped 500 on a system now deemed useless that never got a killer app.

I think without an aggressive trade in program and an aggressive price, you’re going to face slow adoption rates.

I do think timing it with gta6 is a must though.

I also think that again without significant hardware subsidy you’re looking at setting yourself up poorly against the PS6 in the long run too. If the PS3 hadn’t used the cell, it probably would have mopped the floor with the 360.

I think it would work if they do full backwards and forward compatibility, just let devs state minimum and recommended requirements, like on Steam.
Go with numbered Series hardware.
Xbox Series 1 (X/S)
Xbox Series 2 (Xbox Next, 2025)
Xbox Series 3 (2029)
Etc

Some games will run bad on an older box and some will run good enough. Make sure there is full settings menus as a last resort when things are really bad or if people want performance when devs insist that 30fps is enough.
If PC is a Xbox now then Xbox should be a PC. It’s time to rip down the last walls between the two, they don’t make sense anyway. Make Xbox a proper PC living room box.

If they go this route they can do a Steam Deck-like verified program to hype up releases still great on older boxes. And as always launch games with system checks at start and recommended settings to not scare away those who’re afraid of settings menus, and have an advanced settings menu for the rest of us.
Microsoft has a lot of advantages if they want to do a full Xbox is a PC transition. They can use some big screen Windows variant. And imagine if we could run Steam. Use mods. KaBooom!

Buuut nothing of this will happen of course. Sigh. Dream scenarios never happen. For now I have a docked Steam Deck as a living room PC until MS realize it’s the path they should go. My Xbox Series X is currently a living room Gamepass box, haven’t used it much this year tbh but I like Microsoft’s overall strategy with the sub and PC releases and save syncing etc, fits me nicely compared to Sony who usually treat me like shit.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I hope Sony take a look at the length of games like Spiderman 2 and Ratchet and go for those game lengths.

Ragnarok was too long by about 30%. Days Gone was far too long and outstayed it's welcome narratively.

20-30 hour games with optional side content feel right to me.

 

[Crayon]

I think it would work if they do full backwards and forward compatibility, just let devs state minimum and recommended requirements, like on Steam.
Go with numbered Series hardware.
Xbox Series 1 (X/S)
Xbox Series 2 (Xbox Next, 2025)
Xbox Series 3 (2029)
Etc

Some games will run bad on an older box and some will run good enough. Make sure there is full settings menus as a last resort when things are really bad or if people want performance when devs insist that 30fps is enough.
If PC is a Xbox now then Xbox should be a PC. It’s time to rip down the last walls between the two, they don’t make sense anyway. Make Xbox a proper PC living room box.

If they go this route they can do a Steam Deck-like verified program to hype up releases still great on older boxes. And as always launch games with system checks at start and recommended settings to not scare away those who’re afraid of settings menus, and have an advanced settings menu for the rest of us.
Microsoft has a lot of advantages if they want to do a full Xbox is a PC transition. They can use some big screen Windows variant. And imagine if we could run Steam. Use mods. KaBooom!

Buuut nothing of this will happen of course. Sigh. Dream scenarios never happen. For now I have a docked Steam Deck as a living room PC until MS realize it’s the path they should go. My Xbox Series X is currently a living room Gamepass box, haven’t used it much this year tbh but I like Microsoft’s overall strategy with the sub and PC releases and save syncing etc, fits me nicely compared to Sony who usually treat me like shit.

The hardware requirement scheme you are describing could make it so much easier for them to keep up a smaller volume line of consoles, or a more pc like xbox-surface thing. They could release as necessary without having to commit to these overarching 5-10 year plans every time.

 

[jroc74]

I think it is their only play, but they have to execute. And executing hasn't been their strength lately.

I think losing market share has to be their principle concern right now. It's a hail mary, but the XBS is dead and dying. 2023 was a hard year, but 2024 is going to be even harder.

Yeah, at this point, what have they got to lose? Might as well go down swinging.

 

[Topher]

You mean the same stock holders who have seen ~1300% profit on their stock portfolio for the past 10 years while xbox has been on the brink of collapse the whole time? Not sure if they care. Would you care?



I suppose you could argue that those numbers would be even better without xbox, but how marginal would that be?

They will start to care when we go in a nice deep recession and what seems like a parabolic move on a yearly basis takes a break for a few years, but until then, xbox at break even or a slight loss shouldn't be a problem.

Let's see what they do with the Activision profit margin, I think that alone could cover the hardware development costs.

Again, you are talking about reducing that company profit for the sake of an Xbox console that has made negative progress. Profit is the reason those investors invest. Of course they would care. You are literally advocating throwing good money after bad. If gaming division cannot pay for the development of an Xbox console on its own and has to yank money made by other divisions then there is absolutely no reason Xbox console should continue to exist. Thankfully I don't think that will ever be the case, but this bragging about Microsoft's profits as an argument for the sake of Xbox is a cringey at the very least.

 

[Fredrik]

The hardware requirement scheme you are describing could make it so much easier for them to keep up a smaller volume line of consoles, or a more pc like xbox-surface thing. They could release as necessary without having to commit to these overarching 5-10 year plans every time.

Yeah I think it’s the right path forward.
But it’s frustrating to see them stumble on this. Should be so easy to get this done, or so I’m thinking. Steam Box / Steam Deck, but for Windows and with the Xbox label.

Valve has had Steam Deck out for a couple years and imo already do the PC living room thing better than Microsoft who’ve been in the living room for 20 years. I go between the PC and Deck every day. Zero issues. It just works.

 

[Crayon]

Yeah I think it’s the right path forward.
But it’s frustrating to see them stumble on this. Should be so easy to get this done, or so I’m thinking. Steam Box / Steam Deck, but for Windows and with the Xbox label.

Valve has had Steam Deck out for a couple years and imo already do the PC living room thing better than Microsoft who’ve been in the living room for 20 years. I go between the PC and Deck every day. Zero issues. It just works.

Relatively speaking at least. It would be a lot easier than what they have been trying to do. We are at a point where they are not just on the back foot with consoles. We're doing another post-mortem before a generation has ended and this one is worse than the last.

Doing what you are talking about would give them a place in the gaming industry that is much more their own instead of throwing themselves at the wall yet again. Either a sff xbox-branded pc or a really high end console. Either has to be paired with sucking it up and publishing on playstation so that their 80 billion dollar investments can operate properly but it is the way to go. What does taking away 50 million playstation users even get them and at what cost? They could let that go and find a better place to fit in gaming. Even the new hardware can be a win in performance and quality (or more in the case of an actual pc) without ever cracking 10 million.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I think it would work if they do full backwards and forward compatibility, just let devs state minimum and recommended requirements, like on Steam.
Go with numbered Series hardware.
Xbox Series 1 (X/S)
Xbox Series 2 (Xbox Next, 2025)
Xbox Series 3 (2029)
Etc

Some games will run bad on an older box and some will run good enough. Make sure there is full settings menus as a last resort when things are really bad or if people want performance when devs insist that 30fps is enough.
If PC is a Xbox now then Xbox should be a PC. It’s time to rip down the last walls between the two, they don’t make sense anyway. Make Xbox a proper PC living room box.

If they go this route they can do a Steam Deck-like verified program to hype up releases still great on older boxes. And as always launch games with system checks at start and recommended settings to not scare away those who’re afraid of settings menus, and have an advanced settings menu for the rest of us.
Microsoft has a lot of advantages if they want to do a full Xbox is a PC transition. They can use some big screen Windows variant. And imagine if we could run Steam. Use mods. KaBooom!

Buuut nothing of this will happen of course. Sigh. Dream scenarios never happen. For now I have a docked Steam Deck as a living room PC until MS realize it’s the path they should go. My Xbox Series X is currently a living room Gamepass box, haven’t used it much this year tbh but I like Microsoft’s overall strategy with the sub and PC releases and save syncing etc, fits me nicely compared to Sony who usually treat me like shit.

Yeah, I think a lot of people here are way overthinking it. Because they think that things must work in a strict generational fashion for some reason.

MS would simply no longer have generations. They would just have new models, just like PC gets new GPUs and CPUs. This approach could lower opportunity costs for devs to get on Xbox, assuming that these system would essentially just be Windows PCs with a locked down UI and store, with just a little more QA on the setting presets for the games. There is potentially a lot of advantages to this for MS and even more so for gamers as games would have a minimum spec but no top end (would be like compatible with Xbox (whatever the name is) +. This would also preserve the ability for MS to sell the systems at cost, giving them better price to performance than traditional PC plus there would still be opportunities for unique hardware capabilities (running games in virtual machines, etc.). Zero reason to publish anything they wouln't have already intended to on PS with this either, not sure where Crayon pulls that from. In the scope of things PS is a small fish, they aren't that important, PC + Xbox is good enough.

They'd basically be picking a price point(s) and putting together the best package they could at that cost every 3 or 4 years. Performance gaps would be smaller than what we've traditionally seen, but that's already happening in the console space (look at how anemic the uplift is rumored to be on the PS5 Pro 4 years later).

 

[Crayon]

Yeah, I think a lot of people here are way overthinking it. Because they think that things must work in a strict generational fashion for some reason.

MS would simply no longer have generations. They would just have new models, just like PC gets new GPUs and CPUs. This approach could lower opportunity costs for devs to get on Xbox, assuming that these system would essentially just be Windows PCs with a locked down UI and store, with just a little more QA on the setting presets for the games. There is potentially a lot of advantages to this for MS and even more so for gamers as games would have a minimum spec but no top end (would be like compatible with Xbox (whatever the name is) +. This would also preserve the ability for MS to sell the systems at cost, giving them better price to performance than traditional PC plus there would still be opportunities for unique hardware capabilities (running games in virtual machines, etc.). Zero reason to publish anything they wouln't have already intended to on PS with this either, not sure where Crayon pulls that from. In the scope of things PS is a small fish, they aren't that important, PC + Xbox is good enough.

They'd basically be picking a price point(s) and putting together the best package they could at that cost every 3 or 4 years. Performance gaps would be smaller than what we've traditionally seen, but that's already happening in the console space (look at how anemic the uplift is rumored to be on the PS5 Pro 4 years later).

I'm thinking like this: A high end xbox limits the sales of the system. PS is not a small fish and excluding the platform gets them next to nothing in exchange for a lot of pain if they are going to move their hardware upmarket.

 

[Taur007]

The 4d narrative in the OP. This bullshit about ditching generations. That has nothing to do with XSX being a "premium console". It is some contrived nonsense pretending XSX is part of the Xbox One generation.

Well I mean they share the same exact OS so I can definitely see his point though. Someone who's not really a gamer can easily group them as part of the same gen, the only difference is literally "Series" in the name, one can easily be confused.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I'm thinking like this: A high end xbox limits the sales of the system. PS is not a small fish and excluding the platform gets them next to nothing in exchange for a lot of pain if they are going to move their hardware upmarket.

Who said anything about moving their hardware up market. MS already has up market hardware, it's called PC. LOL

Preconfigured, closed systems only make sense on the lower-end. I'm sure this would still be just a $400, $500 or $600 box. The MS ecosystem is PC, Xbox, and Cloud. They already don't care that much about the console sales numbers because that is just one avenue, with a lot of younger gamers preferring the PC platform (why PS's share of publisher revenue is shrinking the way it is as PCs are picking up that slack).

In regards to cloud, MS needs to get away from making the console the basis for that, as building their cloud that way stops them from being competitive with Nvidia, etc. But that's a different discussion all together. Potentially this is where a hidden high-end spec could come in that isn't consumer facing, or is only available as a luxury option with a price to match.

 

[Chittagong]

They were larping of not having generations since last gen. They created One and One X that don’t have a generational boundary between them. Then they created Series S and Series X which do have a generational boundary, S and X executables do not run on One and One X. They are simply backwards compatible consoles of a new generation. The situation is no different than between PS4 and PS5.

But they are pretending there is no generation with just having Xbox as the brand, and downplaying the generational designators. But they haven’t achieved an iOS or PC like generation-less system yet. That is probably the intention, and feasible in the next generation. It is a bit surprising why it wasn‘t already now, given the fact that both generations are built using the same tech.

 

[Topher]

Well I mean they share the same exact OS so I can definitely see his point though. Someone who's not really a gamer can easily group them as part of the same gen, the only difference is literally "Series" in the name, one can easily be confused.

For someone who isn't really a gamer, there was just as much distinction between Xbox 360 and Xbox One. Just as much distinction between PS3, PS4 and PS5. They look at the device itself and they look at the name and it clicks "different generation". That's not even looking at the tech where there are different generations of AMD hardware used from last gen to this gen among other differences.

No one was confused coming into this generation whether it was actually a new generation or not. And Jez isn't even talking about from a gamer's perspective. He is talking about from Microsoft's point of view, something they have never expressed. Like I said, completely contrived.

 

[Crayon]

Who said anything about moving their hardware up market. MS already has up market hardware, it's called PC. LOL

Preconfigured, closed systems only make sense on the lower-end. I'm sure this would still be just a $400, $500 or $600 box. The MS ecosystem is PC, Xbox, and Cloud. They already don't care that much about the console sales numbers because that is just one avenue, with a lot of younger gamers preferring the PC platform (why PS's share of publisher revenue is shrinking the way it is as PCs are picking up that slack).

In regards to cloud, MS needs to get away from making the console the basis for that, as building their cloud that way stops them from being competitive with Nvidia, etc. But that's a different discussion all together. Potentially this is where a hidden high-end spec could come in that isn't consumer facing, or is only available as a luxury option with a price to match.

If it's another 4-600 console, I don't see what there is to gain doing it. Another hype cycle? Nothing changes.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Who said anything about moving their hardware up market. MS already has up market hardware, it's called PC. LOL

The problem there is that PC isn’t MS. It’s not their store, it’s not their hardware, they are a third party on PC if we are talking about games.

But keep trying to convince yourself that somehow PC hardware and store is MS/Xbox

 

[DaGwaphics]

If it's another 4-600 console, I don't see what there is to gain doing it. Another hype cycle? Nothing changes.

That's where I think people are overthinking it. I don't think they would necessarily be trying to gain anything specific from the change, it would just be a change in release schedule and positioning.

These are just boxes people pickup to play MS first-party content (and third-party content of course) if they don't have or want to get a gaming PC. Or the users that want a streamlined UI for the living room etc. and want access to the MS content/services from there.

@ Thirty7ven , I'm not sure what the point is you were trying to put together there. MS sells their games and services on PC and look at that platform as the high-end experience for users that want to pay for that. They've said as much themselves. Like I said, consoles are for those that want a cheaper option or want something couch ready.

 

[Tsaki]

The problem there is that PC isn’t MS. It’s not their store, it’s not their hardware, they are a third party on PC if we are talking about games.

But keep trying to convince yourself that somehow PC hardware and store is MS/Xbox

Well technically I gave MS $20 for a Windows 8 key nine years ago so I guess I paid them money to be able to game on PC. /s

 

[Thirty7ven]

@ Thirty7ven , I'm not sure what the point is you were trying to put together there. MS sells their games and services on PC and look at that platform as the high-end experience for users that want to pay for that. They've said as much themselves. Like I said, consoles are for those that want a cheaper option or want something couch ready.

Then what’s the point of Xbox exclusives? PlayStation and Nintendo already exist and have a much larger userbase. Just get the games there.

PC isn’t by default high end, far from it.

 

[Topher]

@ Thirty7ven , I'm not sure what the point is you were trying to put together there. MS sells their games and services on PC and look at that platform as the high-end experience for users that want to pay for that. They've said as much themselves. Like I said, consoles are for those that want a cheaper option or want something couch ready.

But PC hardware isn't Microsoft's hardware. They own one of the OS used in PC gaming, albeit the dominant one. Outside of that, they are no different than any other publisher that sells games on PC. When Microsoft finally figured that out, they put their games on Steam.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Then what’s the point of Xbox? PlayStation and Nintendo already exist and have a much larger userbase. Just get the games there.

PC isn’t by default high end, far from it.

I'm sure they make a nice chunk of revenue from the store on their own units, not to mention there is no hoops or limitations on how and what they can include in their services etc. I think they enjoy collecting the 30% here vs. paying it, along with the added control.

But PC hardware isn't Microsoft's hardware. They own one of the OS used in PC gaming, albeit the dominant one. Outside of that, they are no different than any other publisher that sells games on PC. When Microsoft finally figured that out, they put their games on Steam.

And? They sell their games and services on there with no strings attached (since the platform is open) and they are successfully doing that.

 

[twilo99]

Again, you are talking about reducing that company profit for the sake of an Xbox console that has made negative progress. Profit is the reason those investors invest. Of course they would care. You are literally advocating throwing good money after bad. If gaming division cannot pay for the development of an Xbox console on its own and has to yank money made by other divisions then there is absolutely no reason Xbox console should continue to exist. Thankfully I don't think that will ever be the case, but this bragging about Microsoft's profits as an argument for the sake of Xbox is a cringey at the very least.

I guess we would have to trust their accountants and risk management team on all of that since they have all the data to work with.

Only time would tell, but thus far, they seem to disagree with your assesment...

 

[Topher]

I guess we would have to trust their accountants and risk management team on all of that since they have all the data to work with.

Only time would tell, but thus far, they seem to disagree with your assesment...

They have? Show me where Microsoft has said they diverted money from other divisions to pay for Xbox console development then.

And? They sell their games and services on there with no strings attached (since the platform is open) and they are successfully doing that.

Sure.....just like everyone else. Not sure why that's relevant, but ok.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Sure.....just like everyone else. Not sure why that's relevant, but ok.

I agree, it's so factually based, I'm not sure why you wanted to debate that.

MS puts their games on PC day one, making the PC platform unquestionably the most premium option to run those games. Assuming the user has spent the necessary $ on the rig.

 

[Topher]

I agree, it's so factually based, I'm not sure why you wanted to debate that.

MS puts their games on PC day one, making the PC platform unquestionably the most premium option to run those games. Assuming the user has spent the necessary $ on the rig.

The debatable aspect is why you are bringing up PC in a console discussion.

 

[twilo99]

They have? Show me where Microsoft has said they diverted money from other divisions to pay for Xbox console development then.

I mean, as of today, they haven't stopped developing consoles, but you are saying that they should because they are just wasting money doing it? If you are right, they will eventually do that, its not like they don't know how to cut loses they deem unnecessary.