Forums - Gaming Discussion - The console war is over

Alara317 said:
sales2099 said:

That’s all fair to say. That said I think GP is worth it even if you don’t count 1st party. Plenty of 3rd party gems are on it. Even ones you’d think everybody has played were up in the charts like RDR2, GTA5, Witcher 3. Gems for me included Kingdom Come, Metro Trilogy, Wolfenstein 1/2, Rage 2, LOTR Mordor/Shadow of War, Outer Worlds. 

The day 1 exclusive perk is the icing on the cake imo. Saving money on some of the best 3rd party content in the generation (provided you are willing to wait a year after they release) is reason alone to get Xbox. From a purely financial savings point of view. 

What about people like me who HAVE all of those games? Sometimes on multiple consoles? I think about it and look back, and I recently picked up The Witcher III WIld Hunt with all its DLC on PS4 for like I think 20 bucks. Given how long the game takes to complete and how much content is there, that alone is worth, what, 3-5 months worth of gameplay? Same with Red Dead Redemption 2. If I mainline that game, I'm looking at 6+ months worth of my time and I got that digitally for a measly 50 bucks (Canadian, remember.) GamePass is a good deal and I'll never say otherwise, but have you considered the reality that a lot of people already HAVE a lot of the games that are on it? 

If you're just getting into videogaming and have never collected games or regularly sell your games, then there's no deal better. but for people like me, people with hundreds of games (maybe thousands in total) both physically and digitally already, the chances of something coming out on the system that I don't already have but want is pretty slim. Furthermore, Xbox Live and PSN both have 'free' games that you keep for as long as you have their services and I've accumulated dozens of games at least on PSN that I'll have for as long as I have PSN. 

In fact, the more I actually think about it, the clearer it is to me (and clearly to others) that really the only reason to buy gamepass is, once again, Microsoft's first party titles. Honestly, I went into this post ready to be apologetic and compassionate about the service, but the more I think about it the more it sounds like smoke and mirrors. again, the deal IS good, but that doesn't mean the value is the same to everyone. it'd be nice to pick it up and play on my PC or something, but with how many games I already own physically and digitally as well as all the stuff I have on PSN and Switch and Steam...95% of the stuff on GamePass is stuff I already have, don't want, or will never play again. The only games I'd personally get GamePass for are, ironically, stuff like Sea of Thieves. Stuff I'd NEVER buy for myself because I think it's a pretty bad game, but would still be fun to play with my brother and our group of friends. I'd pick up the Halo games for the same reason, I don't like Halo but I'd LOVE to play co-op with my buddies. 

and dammit, I think I just flip-flopped again as I think about that. GamePAss is less about having games of your own and more about communal games everyone owns. If everyone has Sea of Thieves...then what harm is it to boot it up and play coop? Even if you don't like Halo or Forza, you can still play it with your buddies if the opportunity comes up. If you wanna play TitanFall but didn't want to buy a whole game just for the online mode (Well, then I'd recommend titanFall 2, but you get the point), then download it on GamePAss and have a go at it! 

See? This is why this debate isn't dead yet. I do agree that all three major companies have vastly different goals, but at the same time, like...if that's the case then why does Microsoft need its own console? 

I'm rambling. I keep going in circles, but that's where it seems like this is all ending up. It seems a lot of people have reiterated the same thing over and over again, but I'll say it myself. Sony is the traditional console manufacturer with dozens of high fidelity games. Switch emphasizes couch multiplayer and family games as well as portability, and Microsoft cares more about its services. the thing is, if that's the case, making a console just sounds like a drain on Microsoft's funds. The 'service based goods' business model is at odds with their stake in the console market, don't you think? 

Hey you do you. Like I said those game I mentioned were high on the most played charts. There’s always people that didn’t play those games. I have myself spent much more time playing 3rd party games then first party on GP. 

Bold: First and foremost the console is meant to get as much of 3rd party game sales as possible over the course of a generation. The real money maker every gen. Sorry but it’s silly to imply they can just walk away from that. Imo Game Pass is the one thing that sets their console apart from Nintendo and Sony.

As for Pc, they can push it there all they want, it’s not the console market and just another space they can plant roots where Sony largely isn’t following. Regular sales are still alive and well, Steam charts are a prime example where Grounded, Halo MCC and Sea of Thieves are getting plenty of action from people who just aren’t ready for a subscription.

People have this “one or the other” mentality. That MS is so invested in GP and therefore have to abandon everything else. They a big boy corporation, they can and are doing both. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 29 July 2020

Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
derpysquirtle64 said:
sales2099 said:

Thank you for that nice reply. Well maybe not here. I also check Twitter, where I’m not joking that seems to be the “frontlines” of the console war. It’s mostly Goopys opinion; more or less fear mongering that Game Pass is the “death” of AAA games. Quite the negative prophecy. Also that it’s not sustainable and will be dropped because it’s so value packed. Then you got staunch“I don’t rent games I only buy” but usually said in a disingenuous way.  

The contrary is that AAA like Gears 5 and Forza Horizon 4 show no evidence of being lesser then their predecessors. Also future AAA games like SoD3, Fable, Avowed, HB2. Even Halo for its looks is the most ambitious campaign in franchise history and the MP should be as feature packed as ever. And finally GP doesn’t restrict you from buying games.

It’s the usual. Back and forth, my side is better then yours. Your pros are crap my pros matter more. That’s why I like it here, it’s more civilized. 

Yes, but unfortunately both doubled down in awful MTX stuff compared to their predecessors which is obviously the worst monetization practice and cancer of gaming currently. Wouldn't say that GamePass is the reason but the point still stands. With Gears 5 it was so bad that I believe that MS has come out and said that they will do less this stuff in the future games.

Gears 5 dialed it back and now is in a pretty good spot with their online. It was all cosmetic anyway. I myself only spent $5 to get General RAAM. Not bad for a day 1 GP title with a full blown campaign and multiplayer component. As for Forza I had 0 incentive to buy anything. I just played the game. Didn’t shove MTX at me or make me feel I needed them. 

In the end the argument only holds if each game had a lacking campaign or multiplayer content to their predecessors. Which they didn’t. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Nintendo is very much competing and they have a 3.5 year head start on Generation 9.  The console war is only over for Microsoft.  When they say "The console war is over" they mean "for us".

Hmm personally I think Switch is gen 8 as a mid gen substitute for the WiiU. But I mean they aren’t competing for specs and top 3rd party games like Sony and MS are now. They just doing their own thing. MS is doing that too but is still very much competing in the traditional sense as well. 

Competition is not based on specs or AAA third party games.  Competition is based on customers.  Nintendo is competing for Sony's customers.  

Meanwhile Microsoft is no longer competing for Sony's customers.  They are competing for Stadia's customers.



Still we have Xbox fans here saying they putting the games on PC doesn't impact the Xbox sales and others that say Phil never ment he isn't concerned about Xbox Series X sales... interesting indeed.

Funnier though is seeing Phil saying about locking game behind a device but going there and paying for timed console exclusivity.

But yes Console war is over to MS because they know they can't win.



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

The_Liquid_Laser said:
sales2099 said:

Hmm personally I think Switch is gen 8 as a mid gen substitute for the WiiU. But I mean they aren’t competing for specs and top 3rd party games like Sony and MS are now. They just doing their own thing. MS is doing that too but is still very much competing in the traditional sense as well. 

Competition is not based on specs or AAA third party games.  Competition is based on customers.  Nintendo is competing for Sony's customers.  

Meanwhile Microsoft is no longer competing for Sony's customers.  They are competing for Stadia's customers.

MS is competing for Sony’s customers. Hundreds of millions of 3rd party games sell over the course of a generation that frankly don’t make it to Nintendo because they opt for lower specs in favour of a unique hardware. 3rd party games largely skip Switch and if they are lucky they get select games years later. 

Let’s all not forget the real reason why consoles exist. The massive money from 3rd parties, you know, 95% of a consoles library. And it’s just a fact that Xbox and PS share a almost identical library compared to Switch. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Still we have Xbox fans here saying they putting the games on PC doesn't impact the Xbox sales and others that say Phil never ment he isn't concerned about Xbox Series X sales... interesting indeed.

Funnier though is seeing Phil saying about locking game behind a device but going there and paying for timed console exclusivity.

But yes Console war is over to MS because they know they can't win.

I see Phil’s comment saying “the console sales will work themselves out” lol. Otherwise I firmly believe anyone with a gaming PC chances are has no Xbox or has little incentive to buy Xbox. It’s MS making customers of people that are best case indifferent, and worse case “haters”. 

Also Phil’s comment about locking isn’t technically wrong, as their policy is to expand Xbox games across different platforms. Still have to have games that entice people to come. Enter moneyhats.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
Alara317 said:

What about people like me who HAVE all of those games? Sometimes on multiple consoles? I think about it and look back, and I recently picked up The Witcher III WIld Hunt with all its DLC on PS4 for like I think 20 bucks. Given how long the game takes to complete and how much content is there, that alone is worth, what, 3-5 months worth of gameplay? Same with Red Dead Redemption 2. If I mainline that game, I'm looking at 6+ months worth of my time and I got that digitally for a measly 50 bucks (Canadian, remember.) GamePass is a good deal and I'll never say otherwise, but have you considered the reality that a lot of people already HAVE a lot of the games that are on it? 

If you're just getting into videogaming and have never collected games or regularly sell your games, then there's no deal better. but for people like me, people with hundreds of games (maybe thousands in total) both physically and digitally already, the chances of something coming out on the system that I don't already have but want is pretty slim. Furthermore, Xbox Live and PSN both have 'free' games that you keep for as long as you have their services and I've accumulated dozens of games at least on PSN that I'll have for as long as I have PSN. 

In fact, the more I actually think about it, the clearer it is to me (and clearly to others) that really the only reason to buy gamepass is, once again, Microsoft's first party titles. Honestly, I went into this post ready to be apologetic and compassionate about the service, but the more I think about it the more it sounds like smoke and mirrors. again, the deal IS good, but that doesn't mean the value is the same to everyone. it'd be nice to pick it up and play on my PC or something, but with how many games I already own physically and digitally as well as all the stuff I have on PSN and Switch and Steam...95% of the stuff on GamePass is stuff I already have, don't want, or will never play again. The only games I'd personally get GamePass for are, ironically, stuff like Sea of Thieves. Stuff I'd NEVER buy for myself because I think it's a pretty bad game, but would still be fun to play with my brother and our group of friends. I'd pick up the Halo games for the same reason, I don't like Halo but I'd LOVE to play co-op with my buddies. 

and dammit, I think I just flip-flopped again as I think about that. GamePAss is less about having games of your own and more about communal games everyone owns. If everyone has Sea of Thieves...then what harm is it to boot it up and play coop? Even if you don't like Halo or Forza, you can still play it with your buddies if the opportunity comes up. If you wanna play TitanFall but didn't want to buy a whole game just for the online mode (Well, then I'd recommend titanFall 2, but you get the point), then download it on GamePAss and have a go at it! 

See? This is why this debate isn't dead yet. I do agree that all three major companies have vastly different goals, but at the same time, like...if that's the case then why does Microsoft need its own console? 

I'm rambling. I keep going in circles, but that's where it seems like this is all ending up. It seems a lot of people have reiterated the same thing over and over again, but I'll say it myself. Sony is the traditional console manufacturer with dozens of high fidelity games. Switch emphasizes couch multiplayer and family games as well as portability, and Microsoft cares more about its services. the thing is, if that's the case, making a console just sounds like a drain on Microsoft's funds. The 'service based goods' business model is at odds with their stake in the console market, don't you think? 

Hey you do you. Like I said those game I mentioned were high on the most played charts. There’s always people that didn’t play those games. I have myself spent much more time playing 3rd party games then first party on GP. 

Bold: First and foremost the console is meant to get as much of 3rd party game sales as possible over the course of a generation. The real money maker every gen. Sorry but it’s silly to imply they can just walk away from that. Imo Game Pass is the one thing that sets their console apart from Nintendo and Sony.

As for Pc, they can push it there all they want, it’s not the console market and just another space they can plant roots where Sony largely isn’t following. Regular sales are still alive and well, Steam charts are a prime example where Grounded, Halo MCC and Sea of Thieves are getting plenty of action from people who just aren’t ready for a subscription.

People have this “one or the other” mentality. That MS is so invested in GP and therefore have to abandon everything else. They a big boy corporation, they can and are doing both

I don't think they can do both. I'm sure Series X will have plenty of great games and Halo will probably be one of them. But at the start of a new console generation, that simply isn't enough. MS needs to create a desire for their new console by showing us what those 12Tflops and SSD can do. But twice in a row now, MS has shown us that their all-inclusive strategy gets in the way of that.

Just read this quote again...

"The fact that there will be no fully exclusive Series X games takes away one of the big motivating factors behind buying the console. It has also sparked a conversation around whether first-party studios will feel able to make the most of the new machine if they need to keep the old one in mind when developing their games. Microsoft feels strongly that it won't be an issue, but even if it is, in the minds of Spencer and his team, that small negative is more than offset by the benefits of being available across platforms.

Game Pass subscribers, which now total more than 10 million customers. If Microsoft turns around to those 10 million people and says that they have to buy an expensive new box in-order to access the next set of big Xbox games, that might result in decent console sales, but will likely hurt its subscriber base. That isn't an acceptable outcome to the company."

GP is great but if you could choose right now between playing 2-year-old, current gen games and a bunch of Indie titles. Or... play Halo Infinite, specifically designed for Series X with jaw dropping visuals that we conceive to be impossible on current gen consoles. What would you pick?



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

Hey you do you. Like I said those game I mentioned were high on the most played charts. There’s always people that didn’t play those games. I have myself spent much more time playing 3rd party games then first party on GP. 

Bold: First and foremost the console is meant to get as much of 3rd party game sales as possible over the course of a generation. The real money maker every gen. Sorry but it’s silly to imply they can just walk away from that. Imo Game Pass is the one thing that sets their console apart from Nintendo and Sony.

As for Pc, they can push it there all they want, it’s not the console market and just another space they can plant roots where Sony largely isn’t following. Regular sales are still alive and well, Steam charts are a prime example where Grounded, Halo MCC and Sea of Thieves are getting plenty of action from people who just aren’t ready for a subscription.

People have this “one or the other” mentality. That MS is so invested in GP and therefore have to abandon everything else. They a big boy corporation, they can and are doing both

I don't think they can do both. I'm sure Series X will have plenty of great games and Halo will probably be one of them. But at the start of a new console generation, that simply isn't enough. MS needs to create a desire for their new console by showing us what those 12Tflops and SSD can do. But twice in a row now, MS has shown us that their all-inclusive strategy gets in the way of that.

Just read this quote again...

"The fact that there will be no fully exclusive Series X games takes away one of the big motivating factors behind buying the console. It has also sparked a conversation around whether first-party studios will feel able to make the most of the new machine if they need to keep the old one in mind when developing their games. Microsoft feels strongly that it won't be an issue, but even if it is, in the minds of Spencer and his team, that small negative is more than offset by the benefits of being available across platforms.

Game Pass subscribers, which now total more than 10 million customers. If Microsoft turns around to those 10 million people and says that they have to buy an expensive new box in-order to access the next set of big Xbox games, that might result in decent console sales, but will likely hurt its subscriber base. That isn't an acceptable outcome to the company."

GP is great but if you could choose right now between playing 2-year-old, current gen games and a bunch of Indie titles. Or... play Halo Infinite, specifically designed for Series X with jaw dropping visuals that we conceive to be impossible on current gen consoles. What would you pick?

Hey, launch for launch, say what you will how Halo Infinite looks. It has a lot more going on then PS5s launch flagship Spiderman MM. One is the most ambitious campaign world created, the other is a generous DLC expansion of the 2018 game. Like Metro: Sams Journey DLC to compare. One will have a massively popular multiplayer, the other is SP only. Spiderman or not it’s locked to one platform, as is Halo where it counts (consoles) but available elsewhere. 

As someone who didn’t like how Halo 5s campaign turned out, I am happy that they nailed the art, music, gunplay, and story. Do I care about its look? Sure. But it sure as hell ain’t a deal breaker, not even close. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Still we have Xbox fans here saying they putting the games on PC doesn't impact the Xbox sales and others that say Phil never ment he isn't concerned about Xbox Series X sales... interesting indeed.

Funnier though is seeing Phil saying about locking game behind a device but going there and paying for timed console exclusivity.

But yes Console war is over to MS because they know they can't win.

I see Phil’s comment saying “the console sales will work themselves out” lol. Otherwise I firmly believe anyone with a gaming PC chances are has no Xbox or has little incentive to buy Xbox. It’s MS making customers of people that are best case indifferent, and worse case “haters”. 

Also Phil’s comment about locking isn’t technically wrong, as their policy is to expand Xbox games across different platforms. Still have to have games that entice people to come. Enter moneyhats.

I would disagree that selling games on Steam is making customers. It's just making a quick and easy buck on the side. And that's it. Has nothing to do with making customers. Because, at least from my point of view, the customers are the people who are locked in to your offerings long-term. Those people who pay you the money for every game you sell. So, you can't really compare the engagement in Xbox ecosystem of the guy who just bought a game on Steam with someone who owns an Xbox. Yet, your post implies that they are equal to MS. I think that you don't need to be a businessman to understand that selling consoles (which means locking someone to your ecosystem) is way more preferable for MS than to just sell games on Steam. The second problem with that is something that is really hard for me to understand but it is just how things are for some reason, but MS decision to bring games to PC is seen as a huge negative in gaming community. I personally think that just by doing this, MS heavily limits their potential userbase, just because gaming community is dumb enough to see it as a negative thing which is always brought up when Xbox discussion takes place.



 

Its only over if we let it happen. Cmon guys, keep the flaming and trolling up!



                          

"We all make choices, but in the end, our choices make us" - Andrew Ryan, Bioshock.