By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 30 September 2022
Edit Thread
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

MS is willing to spend tens of billions on XB because they can make that back with other MS products like Windows in no time. MS doesn't have to worry at all about potentially wasting money. They might make money from it, but if they don't, it's not a big deal for them.

No, MS is willing to spend billions on XB because they believe they can gain a footing within the entertainment space.  Risk is risk, no matter the size of your pockets.  The only difference is that companies with bigger pockets can make bigger risk.  Most companies have actual 5 year or more plans for new products.  They pay people who do nothing but calculate the market and risk and set milestones for success.  Success is not always measured on how much profit made but penetration within a market within a particular time frame.

You said at the end of your post that games sell the ecosystem, yet here you say Phil believes it's the console. Which is it? Was Phil wrong?

Why didn't Phil build up XB Studios or buy up all these companies earlier if that's what was most important and would draw gamers into XB?

Not sure what you mean by why did Phil did not build up XB studios, isnt that exactly what he has done.  Studios they already have, they are hiring for, purchasing new studios to flesh out first party content.  How long do you believe it takes to accomplish this job or do you believe that Phil heads MS as a whole and probably did not have to convince the higher ups to go in a certain direction.  You look at the moves he has made from the moment he became head of Xbox till today and I do not see where your point stands.  Maybe things did not go fast enough for you but then again, you have no clue how MS as a company works.  As to the hardware situation, well if you cannot play the current games at least on the same level as your competition then it makes everything else difficult.  That still does not take away that its the games that push the industry especially if most games are shared between you and your competitor.

You also said old tech doesn't mean anything prior, and Move is old tech, so why bring it up, unless it does mean something?

Hmm, absolutely never stated this.  What I said and will repeat is that it does not matter what the OLD HEAD of XBOX did because that person no longer works for MS.  We need to concentrate what the NEW HEAD of Xbox is doing.  Why dwelling on a product from someone who no longer works for the company and try to base an opinion on the future of the Xbox division when there is a new head of Xbox and a new vision.

MS didn't start XB because they wanted to take a big risk on gaming. They were already into gaming, and a few employees wanted to expand, and Gates was worried about PS taking computing from the office to the living room. It was extremely calculated. MS weren't risking with XB, they were protecting themselves.

Just entering the console market with 2 heavy weights who have complete marketshare in Nintendo and Sony you believe was not a big risk on gaming when MS as a company had absolutely no experience in the market.  They spent billions selling the system at a loss and trying to get content on the platform.  Also, name me what hardware system, made by MS that sold to consumers within the console space before Xbox.  If you are trying to say the PC and console market is the same, I am going to definitely disagree with you there.  I also disagree with your view of why MS entered the market. It was not fear of Sony or Nintendo becoming some PC platform, it was creating a consumer device to push MS eco system beyond PC but that is a much larger discussion for another day.

You said go to church. Now it's go work for someone else? Why would anyone leave MS when they have limitless money and don't have to worry?

Your point still doesn't make sense.

That is because you seem to not understand risk.  MS is a business, they need to manage risk, if you scared you would never make any moves if all you think about is failure.  People who think this way should work for someone, not try to run a business.  All your points appear that you fear a future you cannot define, then believe everyone should have your fear.  You seem to be worried about what ifs and invent what ifs.  Its like what if MS fail what will happen to Xbox users.  Hell, I can what if just about every OEM.  What if Wii was a flop, What if VR flops and Sony is left with an expensive add on.  We can what if to the end of time if all you see is what happen if something fails.

So Game Pass wasn't made for XB owners at all? Phil handling Game Pass and the Activision Blizzard purchase has nothing to do with XB? 

Your point was PS bought Crunchyroll and was straying from PS owners like XB, but PS didn't buy Cruchyroll, Sony Pictures did for streaming, not PS.

Hmm,not sure how you came to the conclusion that I stated that GP wasn't made for XB owners.  I stated that its sole purpose is not just XB owners but MS as a business.  Does MS only have a console but a PC, mobile cloud business. There is a clear context here that you appear to not understand.  MS as a company is not only making moves for their XB console customers but for gamers to MS ecosystem as a whole.  Unless your definition of XB include all different devices that MS is looking to put their games on. but each platform is its own eco system it self.

Is Sony pictures part of Sony.  Main point, all decisions are not going to just be for Xbox consumers as MS does not have just Xbox consumers but gamers in general.  They have 4 different platforms, PC, Console, Cloud, Mobile.

Many article headlines state otherwise. MS adding a few back compat games here and there just because they own those games now is expected. What about all the other games that XB owners love and want? As soon as things get a little tough when it comes to rights and money, MS doesn't want to further pursue back compat all of the sudden? I thought it was very important?

Here is the statement from MS on back compat

On November 15, 2021, Microsoft released a "latest and final addition" of 76 titles to the list of backwards compatible games, stating they "have reached the limit of our ability to bring new games to the catalog from the past due to licensing, legal and technical constraints".[2]

Now list all these articles you state that says otherwise.  Its easy to throw out that opinion but what exactly do you have that support a different result than what MS claims.

You answer first since you don't seem sure yourself. You make it clear that Phil is the new leadership and is making the right moves. You said above that Phil focused on the console since it's what sells the ecosystem. You say here that it's the games that sell the ecosystem. So is it the console or the games? Is Phil right or are you?

No, I claim that Phil is the new leadership and these are the things he is doing, never made a claim whether they are correct or not. 

I will make that claim now and say that currently all the moves he has made has strengthen not only the Xbox console but MS position in gaming. From the moment he took over, he corrected the Xbox one issue against its competitor to gain trust back within the Xbox community.  He then developed a service that added value to all gamers of MS ecosystem.  He then provided as much as he could better version of older games to those gamers.  He made the decision to publish all games on PC as well as console which got MS back into PC gaming and strengthen their relationship there.   He has changed MS direction where they were removing first party studios and now purchasing studios and publishers to build out their content for all MS gamers. He appears to be strengthening relationships with Japanese developers and publishers.  His team also seems to be strengthening relationships with independent developers as well.  I am sure he has made some mistakes but on the bigger playing field he has made MS and the Xbox console more competitive, definitely from the direction it was headed from the previous head of Xbox.

From my point of view, the best thing to happen to PS owners is Phil.  Because if MS was not here making strong moves, who knows the crap I would have to put up with as a PS owner.  

No there is no confusion on my part.  Now that I answered your question, You tell me where you believe the new head of Xbox has made bad decisions that has set back Xbox gamers and gamers in general to MS ecosystem.

I also stated games is what sell the ecosystem.  The ecosystem is not just made up of console users.  What i did state is that the console just like a PC, or a phone is another tool to LOCK users into the ecosystem, there is context in that statement.