(Business Perspective) Does MS really need Xbox Hardware?

[Azzanation]

Pemalite said:

Azzanation said:

If you are an Xbox fan, I understand you aren't happy if Xbox walks, but i am just saying the obvious.

I don't care if Xbox walks. I own Sony and Nintendo consoles as well, but primarily I am a PC gamer.

I do care about bringing my physical library forwards.
If Microsoft cans support for physical games or cans making a successor console, then my wallet will vote in kind.

Azzanation said:

The market is not big enough to sustain all 3 companies

The console market has sustained 3 companies just fine since Microsoft entered the market decades ago.
Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony were all profitable during the 8th gen... 7th gen all 3 console manufacturers had healthy console sales with a relatively competitive split in marketshare.


The Console Market is trending towards 25~ billion in sales and PC market is trending towards 30~ billion.
https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/consumer-electronics/gaming-equipment/game-consoles/worldwide#revenue

Which means it is big enough to sustain all 3.

You keep propagating this lie, but we all know it is false.

The reason why the Xbox Series is imploding is because:

1) No GREAT exclusives.
2) Higher pricing.
3) Shit naming. - Xbox Series? Common. WiiU was a better name.
4) Removal of physical games from game stores which also impacts brand awareness.

First Point: Exactly, people vote with their wallets, you don't need inflated competition for that.

Second Point: Your list of companies says otherwise. Its never been the same 3 companies from the beginning of the console hardware market. That shows hardware companies cannot sustain or care and drop out of hardware over time. Example: Sega lasted 4 generations before dropping out, Xbox is on their 4th gen now, and rumors are strong of them going third party. 

Also to correct you, PS3 lost $5b and 360 lost $3b

Xbox 360 and PS3 losses total $8 billion, ex-Sony employee paints grim future | VG247

That was at a time when competition was at its strongest. When all 3 do well, the industry struggled. The industry is only big enough for 2 successful consoles while the 3rd stays a distance 3rd and investors and shareholders see no purpose staying invested, which is why we continue hearing Xbox going third party since the XB1 era. They may be profiable with the XB1 and XSS/XSX, but it's not enough to keep the suits interested.

Let me answer your 4 points,

1) N64, GameCube, WiiU, DreamCast, Xbox all had amazing games, and they were nowhere near the market leader. So no, great exclusives arent enough to sell consoles.

2) Higher Pricing? It's the same price as its competitors, if anything Xbox has cheaper alternatives like GamePass and the Series S.

3) Naming has nothing to do with sales, the average consumer does not care.

4) Removing of Physical games has only just been rumored, Xbox hasn't been selling well since the XB1 which offered physical games and it's the same as this gen.

Tell me why you are defending Xbox walking out of the hardware market? There is more than enough competition to keep companies humble, and like you mentioned before, Steam competes as well. What are the advantages of Xbox staying in aside from dividing an audience. 

My opinion, I want to see the gaming industry become a 1 box plays all like how PC operate. None of these sealed hardware consoles forcing people to buy them to play some games and divides the players and friends. Gaming should be like the movie industry where any DvD, Blu-Ray and 4k player can play any movie aslong as its compatible. (ie: 4k disks don't work in a DvD drive) 

Companies shouldn't be moneyhatting games to force people to buy a box they don't want. These companies should instead be trying to make the best hardware you can buy to convince customers to buy them over the other brands. Locking content is the cheap way of avoiding building good hardware. Thats just my opinion.  

Last edited by Azzanation - on 09 February 2024