Quantcast
After Playing Nintendo Switch I think Microsoft should Make 2 consoles in 2021-2022

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - After Playing Nintendo Switch I think Microsoft should Make 2 consoles in 2021-2022

2 separate consoles at once? This kind of gives me Sega 32x/Sega Saturn vibes, and that didn't turn out well at all.



Around the Network

Microsoft to copy? Nooooo never



Shadow1980 said:

Ignoring the fact that it's highly improbable if not impossible for a portable X1X to exist in just 3-4 years from now—realistically, it might be at most as powerful as a base XBO, and even that might be pushing it—, there's other issues that MS would face if they entered the portable market.

1) Games. An Xbox Portable will be at least a generation behind whatever their current home console is in terms of power. That means it will only have ports of older games made for previous generations, indie titles and other low-budget affairs that don't require a ton of horsepower to run, and original titles made specifically for the system. The latter would require third parties to invest in the system, and for MS themselves to invest more money in creating original titles for the system. Given other problems the system would face, I'm not sure the risks in investing in it would provide sufficient reward. Plus there's MS's track record of not investing as strongly in first-party efforts as Sony & Nintendo have. And without enough original content for the system, I doubt it would have much commercial viability. Simply saying, "Hey, you can play Xbox One games on the go now!" will be enough in and of itself to propel the system to success.

2) Xbox is not a global brand. While PlayStation and Nintendo sales are more equitably distributed across the major markets, a significant majority of Xbox sales are from Anglophone nations. The U.S. & UK alone represented at least 60% of all 360 sales, and at least two-thirds of all XBO sales. Xbox struggles mightily in continental Europe (the XBO has sold only about 5.4M in Europe sans the UK according to VGC), and it might as well not exist in Japan. This will most likely come into play with a portable system as well. The U.S. & UK will be the best potential markets for an Xbox handheld, but in other markets it would be a hard sell. Even handheld-friendly Japan is likely to simply ignore it.

3) Nintendomination. It's no big secret that Nintendo owns the handheld market. The only non-Nintendo handheld to have truly mainstream success was the PSP, and as the Vita has shown that was a fluke (well, in the West, anyway; the Vita did decent numbers in Japan, though still far short of both its predecessor and the 3DS). Nintendo has had the strategy, the brand power, and the games needed for their handhelds to be successes. If even the massive brand strength of PlayStation wasn't enough for Sony to win in this market, what chance does MS have?

Good post, this pretty much covers it but one other thing, the OP is suggesting a $500 price tag which would be waaaayyyyyy too expensive to reach a mainstream audience.

This device would be lucky to sell 10 million lifetime.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

AngryLittleAlchemist said: 
XD84 said:
In my opinion Microsoft should consider to leave the console market. Since they entered this market I asume they lost more money than they gained.

I think Microsoft should consider becoming a challenger to Steam by making bold steps into the Subscription-based games service. Whether or not it will be seen as favorable, I don't know, but it would certainly be interesting. However, I think it's fairly likely that they'll still make a fourth Xbox. 

PC gamers rejected paying a subscription to XBL years ago, and they also rejected GFWL. They are currently rejecting the Windows store in it's current form, so I'd imagine them outright rejecting the second attempt at getting PC gamers to pay a sub fee, on top of having less features and no mod support.

 

If they want to truly compete with Steam, they have to take all of the good pages from what Steam has done over the years.



                                       

Microsoft can’t even handle one console, what makes you think they could handle two?!



Around the Network
zorg1000 said:

Good post, this pretty much covers it but one other thing, the OP is suggesting a $500 price tag which would be waaaayyyyyy too expensive to reach a mainstream audience.

This device would be lucky to sell 10 million lifetime.

I missed that part. A $500 price tag would kill any portable. Hell, the most expensive handheld ever was the TurboExpress, which had an inflation-adjusted price tag of $463. It flopped. Horribly. The most expensive successful handheld at launch was the PSP, at $320 adjusted. The most expensive Nintendo handheld at launch was by far the 3DS, at $277 adjusted, and even then Nintendo was forced to slash the price by a third because of lackluster sales in those first several months.



Chazore said: 

PC gamers rejected paying a subscription to XBL years ago, and they also rejected GFWL. They are currently rejecting the Windows store in it's current form, so I'd imagine them outright rejecting the second attempt at getting PC gamers to pay a sub fee, on top of having less features and no mod support.

 

If they want to truly compete with Steam, they have to take all of the good pages from what Steam has done over the years.

I don't really think your argument holds up well. PC gamers rejected Microsoft's advances based on quality, Xbox Live was more of a scam on PC than it was a "service" so acting like it's equivalent to any Microsoft subscription is a slippery slope, Games For Windows Live was awful, had a terrible interface and shitty DRM. And the Windows store is extremely limited and, again, has a terrible interface. 

Basically what i'm saying is ... in order for your argument to hold water you would have to believe 1 ) the false equivalence that every subscription service is  the same and 2 ) that this theoretical subscription service would be bad before it's even made. Even though the entire point of my comment was that it would interesting to see how gamers react to it ... so there isn't a point in making absolutes to refute the possibility. It's as useless as saying "If Steam 2.0 is bad then people won't like it" - like duh, obviously. However, I am way more interested in how this would turn out if it was well received, so let me chime in on a few things.

Trying to compete with Steam by copying Valve isn't a good idea. Steam already has a strangle hold on PC software sales and doing the exact same thing as them isn't going to drive competition.  In addition, Steam already HAS done some bad things that have really effected the platform for a while now. Steam now has a terrible store front as it doesn't weed out much of the bullshit. Steam isn't perfect, even though i'm not enough of a snob to really not love it. But the mere idea of paying say 10-15$ a month for a huge selection of games is enough to entice a lot of people especially when you consider that most PC gamers are connected to the internet 24/7. If they plan to play the game offline, they could just pay a few extra dollars to access it in offline mode. I imagine that this service would have it's own HUB like Steam where you can add friends, make clans and communities, and post art etc. As good as Steam's HUB is compared to the shit that is Origin, Uplay, or the Windows Store even it's not perfect. If Microsoft should copy anything it should be that HUB and it should just make it even better. Microsoft might worry about Mods if they have a chance of unlocking the DRM for a game, so what they could do is have their own "workshop" where mods that go through Microsoft's check can be installed in a game that you are paying a subscription for. It might limit the amount that goes on their front but it really shouldn't ... I don't know of many mods that have security issues ... As long as Microsoft doesn't try to limit speech and actions on their userface and keep it relatively free like Steam's workshop and community section, I don't see the issue.

There's a lot of issues with the idea of a subscription based service and i'm not even necessarily a fan of it (I don't see why the concept of just buying a game should be discarded just because it's expensive). But it would at least be interesting to see how it would pan out, things could be fixed as they go on, and it would at least give Steam a competitor. Of course if i'm rooting for anybody it's not Microsoft, we really should get a different company competing in the games industry on PC .... 



Pinkie_pie said:
The switch came out 4 years after the wii u so it's possible for a portable xbox one x to come out 4 years after the xbox one x

Wii U was incredibly underpowered for 2012, barely more powerful than Sony and Microsoft’s previous gen consoles, while the Xbox One X is currently the most advanced console on the market. There’s a huge difference. 

I do think it’s certainly possible for mobile tech to catch up to the original Xbox One by 2021, or at least 2023. After all, the Xbox 360 was ten years old when the Switch’s Tegra chip, a mobile chip capable of surpassing the Xbox 360, was first released. But the Xbox One X? Nah. Definitely not.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I don't really think your argument holds up well. PC gamers rejected Microsoft's advances based on quality, Xbox Live was more of a scam on PC than it was a "service" so acting like it's equivalent to any Microsoft subscription is a slippery slope, Games For Windows Live was awful, had a terrible interface and shitty DRM. And the Windows store is extremely limited and, again, has a terrible interface. 

Basically what i'm saying is ... in order for your argument to hold water you would have to believe 1 ) the false equivalence that every subscription service is  the same and 2 ) that this theoretical subscription service would be bad before it's even made. Even though the entire point of my comment was that it would interesting to see how gamers react to it ... so there isn't a point in making absolutes to refute the possibility. It's as useless as saying "If Steam 2.0 is bad then people won't like it" - like duh, obviously. However, I am way more interested in how this would turn out if it was well received, so let me chime in on a few things.

Trying to compete with Steam by copying Valve isn't a good idea. Steam already has a strangle hold on PC software sales and doing the exact same thing as them isn't going to drive competition.  In addition, Steam already HAS done some bad things that have really effected the platform for a while now. Steam now has a terrible store front as it doesn't weed out much of the bullshit. Steam isn't perfect, even though i'm not enough of a snob to really not love it. But the mere idea of paying say 10-15$ a month for a huge selection of games is enough to entice a lot of people especially when you consider that most PC gamers are connected to the internet 24/7. If they plan to play the game offline, they could just pay a few extra dollars to access it in offline mode. I imagine that this service would have it's own HUB like Steam where you can add friends, make clans and communities, and post art etc. As good as Steam's HUB is compared to the shit that is Origin, Uplay, or the Windows Store even it's not perfect. If Microsoft should copy anything it should be that HUB and it should just make it even better. Microsoft might worry about Mods if they have a chance of unlocking the DRM for a game, so what they could do is have their own "workshop" where mods that go through Microsoft's check can be installed in a game that you are paying a subscription for. It might limit the amount that goes on their front but it really shouldn't ... I don't know of many mods that have security issues ... As long as Microsoft doesn't try to limit speech and actions on their userface and keep it relatively free like Steam's workshop and community section, I don't see the issue.

There's a lot of issues with the idea of a subscription based service and i'm not even necessarily a fan of it (I don't see why the concept of just buying a game should be discarded just because it's expensive). But it would at least be interesting to see how it would pan out, things could be fixed as they go on, and it would at least give Steam a competitor. Of course if i'm rooting for anybody it's not Microsoft, we really should get a different company competing in the games industry on PC .... 

It's not even an argument here. PC gamers rejected GFWL and being charged a sub fee. That's not an argument, but a fact that happened years ago.

It's not even a point of making "absolutes". You've seen it happen multiple times in the past to see where it went on PC. Magically thinking it will objectively be a massive hit and allow PC to gain sub fees all around is just plain silly, and that alone doesn't hold water, based on past and current evidence. 

No, I mentioned taking their "good pages" from what Steam has been rolling with over the years. MS takes the good features, and what people like using Steam for, then MS adds on top of that with unique and good ideas of their own. They need to catch up to Steam, but going all in on their own methods isn't working out for them currently, and this isn't going to be another one of those "give it another decade" kind of ideas either.

I never said Steam was perfect, but it seems we're putting a large focus on just the bad things Steam has done, vs the good, which honestly isn't backing up the argument, but only points out that you're letting one side slide more over the other for little to no reason.

You don't have to be a "snob" to like Steam. I prefer using it over other clients because 1) it has features I'm actually interested in and consider QoL, and 2) It has all the games I want being sold from the store, and 3) It has mod support via the workshop, which I value quite highly as I like to mod my games whenever possible. 

@Bold

You assume everyone loves renting games more so than owning them. Again, there is little data on PC to suggest that 90% of PC gamers will love paying a sub fee monthly and never buying a game once ever again. Paying a few extra dollars just leads to a slippery slope, with no end.

Their DRM has already been cracked, and recently we've found that they used 5 layers of DRM for one of their games, 5 layers...

Going through a "checking" booth of sorts via MS just serves as a way to kill the modding community, because you'd be going through what the company thinks is good vs what the community actually wants. You don't try to control the modding community, even Bethesda knows better than to control their entire modding community (hence why Nexus is still around and still widely used more than Bethesda's "modding club").

The concept is interesting to you, because you have nothing to lose from it being executed. I however, would rather not see an experiment being conducted in a space they've already proven their worst in. I especially have something to lose if they try to screw around with games, let alone their OS in the future. I'd rather they leave things as they are, and instead appeal to the interests of those that want a good storefront and client, not what they think is best for me.

 

As far as things are going, there is no solid all around amazing competitor to Steam, because no one else is bothering to try taking all the pages. Everyone takes one or two pages and calls it a day. To learn how to beat your competitor, you have to study what good they are doing, as well as the bad, and simply adding onto the good and giving your own unique spin (and I mean unique, not a half arsed job).

 

Study the PC ecosystem a bit more, and you'll learn more of what makes it tick. Those that don't study it well seem to think mods don't matter or should be restricted in some form or another (when they really shouldn't, as people always find a way around said blocks).



                                       

Chazore said: 

You're right, it's not an argument. I'm not going to entertain a false equivalence because you think subscription services are all the same. They aren't. Nothing worth discussing about if you're just going to keep hammering home the Xbox Live comparison which doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. Humble Bundle is a subscription service, but it's successful. And if you say "that's a false equiva-" yeah , that's exactly my point... There really hasn't been a lot of subscription services based around delivering games for a low cost. The one I can think of that was a massive flop was too early technologically for it's own good, and died out because it was based on streaming rather than digital downloads. 

Ah, well if you just mean taking the good parts of Steam and not literally competing as a purely digital download storefront then I agree. Which is why I more or less said that ... 

"I never said Steam was perfect, but it seems we're putting a large focus on just the bad things Steam has done, vs the good, which honestly isn't backing up the argument, but only points out that you're letting one side slide more over the other for little to no reason."

I literally listed ONE problem with Steam. Maybe two? Talk about exaggeration...... obviously if someone is a competitor to another service they need to show which ways that service can be improved. I don't even understand how you can say I'm only focusing on the negatives of Steam when I listed original ideas on how Microsoft can make a good service. If someone makes an argument for how a competing service can be made and they just list the negatives of the existing predominate service than they aren't making an argument. That's why I didn't do that.

"You assume everyone loves renting games more so than owning them. Again, there is little data on PC to suggest that 90% of PC gamers will love paying a sub fee monthly and never buying a game once ever again. Paying a few extra dollars just leads to a slippery slope, with no end."

How did I assume that when I literally said that my  preference is owning them ... ? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. People who talk from a very one-sided perspective and make broad sweeping judgments on peoples preferences are generally in favor of the preference they are speaking about. That's why they aren't level-headed and make bad arguments, because they think everyone will want what they want. But in this case my preference isn't even renting games so obviously I wouldn't assume everyone else would want to as well...

This doesn't even make sense from a logical perspective. 90% of the PC market isn't being a competitor to Valve, it's literally being the main driving force in the PC world. My point was never that Microsoft should capture 90% of the market, that doesn't make sense. I was just saying that there should be a COMPETITOR to Valve, because we really don't have one right now ...

The point about the "slippery slope" for paying a few extra dollars is just illogical. How is it a "slippery slope"? You want to play the game offline, purchase it for a few dollars. How is that a "slippery slope"? It sounds like you just threw out a phrase to invalidate an idea.

In general your point about Mods and DRM is a big nothing burger. Again, the comment you originally responded to was simply saying the idea would be interesting.  Then, you took a hypothetical and replied to it in a purely negative perspective. So I replied from a positive one because it would be more interesting. Obviously, if I'm entertaining the idea of a positive hypothetical from Microsoft .... then a free modding community and less DRM would be a pretty good start. I'm not stupid, I don't need to "study the PC ecosystem" (do you really think it's hard to study an ecosystem with one main digital storefront and like four significantly smaller somewhat legitimate subdivisions? What's complex about the PC community ... the mods?). I'm simply saying that if I was to be an optimist, and thought that the Devil could change their ways and do something positive for the community ... the program I outlined would be a pretty good start. 

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Since you are making a big stink about this, let me do the work for you. My idea is too optimistic. It could happen, it's not as unrealistic as a world of nothing but peace and love. But it's pretty damn close. If you want me to be realistic, then Microsoft's DRM policies as well as Mods would make it nearly impossible for them to be a good competitor. They could do it, but that would require them to be less stubborn. And that's assuming they're even going to be making a subscription service .... 

By the way, please stop trying to pigeonhole me into the "doesn't care about mods! doesn't know PC ecosystem" thing.... I literally use mods all the time. It's a hypothetical for a reason, it isn't a realistic outcome.