Quantcast
Microsoft Has No Further Plans To Bring First-Party Games to Other Platforms

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Microsoft Has No Further Plans To Bring First-Party Games to Other Platforms

LudicrousSpeed said:
PotentHerbs said:

Phil has said so many conflicting things its hard to keep track of them all. From E3 this year: 

https://ca.ign.com/articles/2019/06/19/phil-spencer-xbox-focus-is-on-software-and-services-not-console-sales

"Spencer further defended Microsoft's strategy. 'There’s always the core that kind of comes back [with]: 'You’re reducing the need to buy an Xbox.' I actually find that in reality people play on a console because they enjoy playing on a television on the couch with a controller in their hands, and it’s an experiential thing more than it is trying to sell an individual device. To shorten it: We focus on the player; we don’t focus on the device."

The average consumer will definitely see this headline as most major gaming sites will cover it.

That’s cool but doesn’t change or relate to anything I said. And obviously E3 news will be more covered than other news cycles, but the average consumer still won’t see it. The average video game consumer doesn’t pay attention to E3. Its for hardcore gamers. Reading video game news is for hardcore gamers. Which just makes it funnier when hardcore gamers act like they have no idea what Microsoft is saying.

How does it not relate? Phil has made many different statements about Games Pass just this year, that either sound like MS is all in for the next generation, or that MS is ready to transition the Xbox brand into a streaming service midway next generation. 

These sort of statements/interviews generate discussion on forums like IGN or Reddit, which have millions of average video game consumers reading, upvoting, replying, referencing/ posting past statements made by Phil Spencer, all to have a discourse about the state of Xbox. In the Reddit thread I posted, a good amount of Xbox fans are questioning the value of owning an Xbox next generation. There are millions of people subscribed to that thread, dwarfing VGChartz and ResetEra combined. 

E3 is the most popular gaming convention around. It definitely isn't only viewed by hardcore gamers.



PotentHerbs said:

You tried to spin this thread, majorly a discussion about MS PR, to posters on this forum who apparently have an interest in MS IP's. How many other threads on this site, discussing actual MS IP's, get this amount of discussion? 

Anyways, this isn't the only MS related thread I post on.

Huh what spin? I just find it funny that people think Xbox has no games yet are so caught up in where these no games are going to land.

You just proved these people exist by stating there is nothing worth investing into an Xbox for but seem rather interested in the PR outcome.

Question: Why do you care about the PR of a conpany about there line up of games when you claim there is nothing interesting in owning an Xbox for?

Again i wouldnt be in threads about a company i have no interests in, about there 1st party lineup i dont care for and could care even less weather they PR yes or PR no if they go multiplat. 



PotentHerbs said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

That’s cool but doesn’t change or relate to anything I said. And obviously E3 news will be more covered than other news cycles, but the average consumer still won’t see it. The average video game consumer doesn’t pay attention to E3. Its for hardcore gamers. Reading video game news is for hardcore gamers. Which just makes it funnier when hardcore gamers act like they have no idea what Microsoft is saying.

How does it not relate? Phil has made many different statements about Games Pass just this year, that either sound like MS is all in for the next generation, or that MS is ready to transition the Xbox brand into a streaming service midway next generation. 

These sort of statements/interviews generate discussion on forums like IGN or Reddit, which have millions of average video game consumers reading, upvoting, replying, referencing/ posting past statements made by Phil Spencer, all to have a discourse about the state of Xbox. In the Reddit thread I posted, a good amount of Xbox fans are questioning the value of owning an Xbox next generation. There are millions of people subscribed to that thread, dwarfing VGChartz and ResetEra combined. 

E3 is the most popular gaming convention around. It definitely isn't only viewed by hardcore gamers.

I don't know of any comments he'd made that makes it seem as if they'd abandon hardware mid gen. Even the link you posted is just a snippet of a bigger interview where he says they view the powerful Xbox hardware as a critical piece of the puzzle. Which goes directly against what you're saying.

Which is a common theme in this thread. Spinning, exaggerating, applying personal bias or views on simple comments, not reading or using full articles. This "confusing" Microsoft PR is only confusing because some make it that way.



I find it strange that no one has pointed out the simplest explanation for how the two pieces of PR don't conflict each other at all.

Right now GamePass is on PC and X1. The games on these hardware platforms are different despite them both being GamePass. By this set-up, GamePass on other platforms could also restrict which games are available on those platforms. GamePass on PS could exclude MS's first party. I mean, even EA Access or whatever it's called has this set-up where on Xbox One it has a bunch of titles from the 360 era due to the hardware's capability while on PS4 it doesn't. The subscription service can have different libraries available on different platforms and scale the cost based on that. So MS could absolutely bring GamePass to other platforms without bringing any first party content to them.

Just my two cents. GamePass is interesting to me and I've invested in it for the $1 fee to convert my 3 years of live to GamePass Ultimate. Depending on the state of the industry and the library/cost when my subscription is done, I'll see if I want to continue or cut away.



trasharmdsister12 said:
I find it strange that no one has pointed out the simplest explanation for how the two pieces of PR don't conflict each other at all.

Right now GamePass is on PC and X1. The games on these hardware platforms are different despite them both being GamePass. By this set-up, GamePass on other platforms could also restrict which games are available on those platforms. GamePass on PS could exclude MS's first party. I mean, even EA Access or whatever it's called has this set-up where on Xbox One it has a bunch of titles from the 360 era due to the hardware's capability while on PS4 it doesn't. The subscription service can have different libraries available on different platforms and scale the cost based on that. So MS could absolutely bring GamePass to other platforms without bringing any first party content to them.

Just my two cents. GamePass is interesting to me and I've invested in it for the $1 fee to convert my 3 years of live to GamePass Ultimate. Depending on the state of the industry and the library/cost when my subscription is done, I'll see if I want to continue or cut away.

I don't really see PS allowing GamePass with only the 3rd party games that are already on their system and sharing the revenue with MS. They would much more likely make a copycat of it on PS.

Also if you have to make interpretation and clarification it already show their message is at least not well done even though there are claims of it being perfectly clear, simple and that anyone that didn't understood is dumb or game warrior.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

I don't really see PS allowing GamePass with only the 3rd party games that are already on their system and sharing the revenue with MS. They would much more likely make a copycat of it on PS.

Also if you have to make interpretation and clarification it already show their message is at least not well done even though there are claims of it being perfectly clear, simple and that anyone that didn't understood is dumb or game warrior.

I'm not saying Sony will allow it. I'm with you that hey likely won't. But it would be MS's goal so that people on all platforms and hardware are using the GamePass service, which means more subscriptions and more Live accounts. It could also become like the streaming wars where just like Netflix and Hulu buy up exclusive third party streaming rights on shows, GamePass and PS Now buy up rights on third party games for their subscription service.

Actually, the way I read the PR was exactly what I wrote. I'm confused as to how other people are seeing it differently. In my opinion I think people just see what they want to see.



I also don’t see Sony ever allowing GamePass on PS. The service doesn’t make sense without day one XGS titles, and those would require XBL, and Sony doesn’t want XBL in their ecosystem.

But who knows, Sony is coming to Microsoft for Azure.



trasharmdsister12 said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't really see PS allowing GamePass with only the 3rd party games that are already on their system and sharing the revenue with MS. They would much more likely make a copycat of it on PS.

Also if you have to make interpretation and clarification it already show their message is at least not well done even though there are claims of it being perfectly clear, simple and that anyone that didn't understood is dumb or game warrior.

I'm not saying Sony will allow it. I'm with you that hey likely won't. But it would be MS's goal so that people on all platforms and hardware are using the GamePass service, which means more subscriptions and more Live accounts. It could also become like the streaming wars where just like Netflix and Hulu buy up exclusive third party streaming rights on shows, GamePass and PS Now buy up rights on third party games for their subscription service.

Actually, the way I read the PR was exactly what I wrote. I'm confused as to how other people are seeing it differently. In my opinion I think people just see what they want to see.

It is still possible that they put all the Gamepass games including first party.

We may never know what the companies are cooking behind doors.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

LudicrousSpeed said:
PotentHerbs said:

How does it not relate? Phil has made many different statements about Games Pass just this year, that either sound like MS is all in for the next generation, or that MS is ready to transition the Xbox brand into a streaming service midway next generation. 

These sort of statements/interviews generate discussion on forums like IGN or Reddit, which have millions of average video game consumers reading, upvoting, replying, referencing/ posting past statements made by Phil Spencer, all to have a discourse about the state of Xbox. In the Reddit thread I posted, a good amount of Xbox fans are questioning the value of owning an Xbox next generation. There are millions of people subscribed to that thread, dwarfing VGChartz and ResetEra combined. 

E3 is the most popular gaming convention around. It definitely isn't only viewed by hardcore gamers.

I don't know of any comments he'd made that makes it seem as if they'd abandon hardware mid gen. Even the link you posted is just a snippet of a bigger interview where he says they view the powerful Xbox hardware as a critical piece of the puzzle. Which goes directly against what you're saying.

Which is a common theme in this thread. Spinning, exaggerating, applying personal bias or views on simple comments, not reading or using full articles. This "confusing" Microsoft PR is only confusing because some make it that way.

Here's a few more: 

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-scarlett-at-e3-2019-phil-spencer-talks-disc-d/1100-6467725/

"Spencer also spoke about how Microsoft doesn't necessarily need you to buy Project Scarlett. The real money is made in software and services, Spencer pointed out. So if you're already invested in the Xbox ecosystem, say if you already own any of the Xbox One family of consoles, Microsoft isn't overly concerned about if you upgrade to Scarlett.

"I actually never really need that customer [who already owns an Xbox One] to go buy a new piece of hardware," he said. "The business is around software and service growth. That is the profitable part of the business; selling the hardware is not the profitable part of the business."

"This is a little bit why we've backed away from the race on how many we can sell or announce the the sales of as many consoles as possible," Spencer said. "Not that that's immaterial; I'm not at all trying to say that. But the real root of the business is how many customers are engaged in your service. How engaged are they? And can you keep that number growing?"

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/beyond-console-xbox-leaders-detail-microsofts-gaming-future-led-xcloud-streaming-service/amp/

Microsoft laid out this strategy on a tour of its gaming facilities at its Redmond, Wash., home base this week. Executives steadily repeated a key number: 2 billion. That’s the number of gamers in the world, by Microsoft’s estimates, and many of these players live in parts of the world where console gaming isn’t feasible.

The shift in the gaming teams’ focus fits with Microsoft’s overall evolution. Under CEO Satya Nadella, Microsoft wants to bring its services and apps to as many people as possible, regardless of what devices they use.

In some cases, this means working with competitors that make devices rivaling some of Microsoft’s own gadgets. Gaming appears to be no exception, as Microsoft is expected to unveil the extension of Xbox Live compatibility to several additional platforms, including Android and iOS mobile devices and the Nintendo Switch, at the Game Developers Conference later this month.

Microsoft executives demurred when asked specifically about this plan, but Phil Spencer, head of gaming, wasn’t shy about the company’s cross-device ambitions. That push is embodied by Project xCloud, but the company also wants to expand its Game Pass subscription service as well.

“We want to bring Game Pass to any device that somebody wants to play on,” Spencer said. “Not just because it’s our business, but really because the business model allows for people to consume and find games that they wouldn’t have played in any other space.”

“That is not where you make money,” Spencer said of consoles. “The business inside of games is really selling games, and selling access to games and content in means like that is the fundamental business. So if you open it up, the more often people can play, the more they’re enjoying the art form. It increases the size of the business.”

--

There is more than enough evidence that MS makes "confusing" PR statements about Games Pass/ Xbox just this year. Even in this thread, the original article linked in the OP, claiming "no further plans to bring first party games to other platforms," gets contradicted by MS a few days later. There is no question to me that MS can do a much better job at PR. Their actual statements aren't the problem, its the amount of differing statements, making it seem they can go in either direction, depending on the week or time of day.



DonFerrari said:

It is still possible that they put all the Gamepass games including first party.

We may never know what the companies are cooking behind doors.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just pointing out that given the way the industry works, it amazes me that no one had pointed out the potential explanation I presented. Instead the conversation turned into muddling the message with confusion to point out discrepancy in MS's messaging. Am I saying MS has never had PR problems? Oh goodness no. As a fan I've been quick and ruthless to call them out in frustration of their own stupidity, as I have for Sony and Nintendo. 

For sure. For all we know MS could be putting every game on every device in the form of streaming (re-compiling the codebase and changing settings to make the games compatible with native rendering on all hardware platforms is a tall order) so that even if you get to play a first party game on the Switch or PS5, it might be a compromised experience. It helps to apply some logic and reasoning to the outlook and explain it clearly and concisely.