By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

Barkley on 03 August 2019
Intrinsic said:

I would kill off the Xbox console, they go all-in into a PC game store and build my services around that. 

That would be abandoning third party and gold membership revenue. With Windows being an open platform it doesn't have as much potential for gaming profits as a closed platform like consoles.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 03 August 2019
Intrinsic said:
Well, that will be a really stupid idea...

If MS were to be going full-on third party then that "may" be great. On another note, if steam were owned by MS from day one and has grown to what it is now, MS would not even need an Xbox platform. This ting is simple.

While MS has Windows, MS is making zero $$ from game software sales (not published by MS) on the PC. Games sold through steam or other PC game stores. As it stands Xbox has gone from being a direct game console rival to Playstation (which lets not kid ourselves is what it was always intended to be) to becoming this gateway platform for the MS gaming ecosystem.

If the Xbox were as successful as the Playstation, the majority of the initiatives MS is taking today wouldn't even be on the cards. They just wouldn't need it.

MS needs to focus on one thing... and win it. Make one area heir own and build on that. Cause right now, they sure as hell seems like a jack of all trades and master of none.

More importantly, though Halo is already coming to PC, if MS intends to build out their presence on PC they simply can't do to their PC initiatives what they have already done to their Xbox console initiative and release their gateway games on a nintendo platform.

This guy gets it. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 August 2019
Barkley said:
Intrinsic said:

I would kill off the Xbox console, they go all-in into a PC game store and build my services around that. 

That would be abandoning third party and gold membership revenue. With Windows being an open platform it doesn't have as much potential for gaming profits as a closed platform like consoles.

Good thinking. Xbox Live gold is the only reason the console is valuable outside of software sales from first and third party.



curl-6 on 03 August 2019
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:

Because they (MS) want to bring their games and services to a wider audience. But that doesn't take anything away from Xbox gamers. They lose nothing by Switch owners also being able to play Cuphead or the older Halos.

Lets think about this again. As consumers...who has gained from that deal? and who has remained the same in the share of games they have. For consumers this exchange is not equal. If you cant see that only Microsoft, Nintendo and their fanbase have gained while Xbox gamers have not, there is an issue.

Microsofts gain= Money, units of software sold and subscriptions. The potential for getting more services grows as the relationship gets more positive response.

Nintendo's gain= Expanded library, a cut of software sales and subscription fees.

Nintendo fan's gain= More Games and services that Nintendo does not provide.

Xbox fans= ????

As an owner of Bayonetta 2 on Wii U it wouldn't benefit me if tomorrow Nintendo decided to sell the rights and let it release on Xbox One and PS4. But that wouldn't make me a "second class citizen" as nothing has been taken from me. 



Barkley on 03 August 2019
curl-6 said:

As an owner of Bayonetta 2 on Wii U it wouldn't benefit me if tomorrow Nintendo decided to sell the rights and let it release on Xbox One and PS4. But that wouldn't make me a "second class citizen" as nothing has been taken from me. 

I think it's more the perception that the company is spending their time working for someone else rather than you. Rather than having something taken away.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 03 August 2019
Barkley said:
curl-6 said:

As an owner of Bayonetta 2 on Wii U it wouldn't benefit me if tomorrow Nintendo decided to sell the rights and let it release on Xbox One and PS4. But that wouldn't make me a "second class citizen" as nothing has been taken from me. 

I think it's more the perception that the company is spending their time working for someone else rather than you. Rather than having something taken away.

Okay, but all companies do that, not everything Nintendo does directly benefits me, their mobile games and even a lot of their Switch games aren't for me, yet I wouldn't say that makes me a second class citizen.



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 August 2019
curl-6 said:
Barkley said:

I think it's more the perception that the company is spending their time working for someone else rather than you. Rather than having something taken away.

Okay, but all companies do that, not everything Nintendo does directly benefits me, their mobile games and even a lot of their Switch games aren't for me, yet I wouldn't say that makes me a second class citizen.

So what differentiates a third party from a first party for you ?I assure you, this logic did not exist until Microsoft. Companies knew they had to have their own games to sell their consoles and strengthen their ecosystem. If your games collection doesn't grow because the brand you've  invested in is not reinvesting into you, you're a second class citizen. If you're paying for online while people on PC are getting Windows ten worked on to serve them similarly to you, you're paying their other peoples benefit. People who have invested less are being focused on more than you and receiving the equivalent or less costly entrance for the same items you've spent your money on. There is no equality.



curl-6 on 03 August 2019
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:

Okay, but all companies do that, not everything Nintendo does directly benefits me, their mobile games and even a lot of their Switch games aren't for me, yet I wouldn't say that makes me a second class citizen.

So what differentiates a third party from a first party for you. I assure you, this logic did not exist until Microsoft. Companies knew they had to have their own games to sell their consoles and strengthen their ecosystem.

First parties manufacture hardware. But I wasn't even talking about that, all I meant was that to me "second class citizens" seems to me to imply mistreatment and I just don't see how that's the case for Xbox gamers regarding something like Cuphead or indeed the older Halos coming to Switch.



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 August 2019
Barkley said:
curl-6 said:

As an owner of Bayonetta 2 on Wii U it wouldn't benefit me if tomorrow Nintendo decided to sell the rights and let it release on Xbox One and PS4. But that wouldn't make me a "second class citizen" as nothing has been taken from me. 

I think it's more the perception that the company is spending their time working for someone else rather than you. Rather than having something taken away.

Exactly. If they got Nintendo's games it would be a fair exchange, but Nintendo doesn't want to give Xbox their games and Microsoft is fine with that. Who is the fool? Surely not Nintendo. They get Microsofts games and their base has less of a reason to buy an Xbox. lol



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 August 2019
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

So what differentiates a third party from a first party for you. I assure you, this logic did not exist until Microsoft. Companies knew they had to have their own games to sell their consoles and strengthen their ecosystem.

First parties manufacture hardware. But I wasn't even talking about that, all I meant was that to me "second class citizens" seems to me to imply mistreatment and I just don't see how that's the case for Xbox gamers regarding something like Cuphead or indeed the older Halos coming to Switch.

I updated the post. Mistreatment can also mean neglect or demotion of value as far as consumers are concerned.

LOL...I have cuphead on my switch. I've already gained. I sold my Xbox two years ago, so again....im only speaking on their behalf as the Playstation/ Switch owner. There was no equivalent exchange, my friend. I gained.