By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jranation said:
If it releases on Xbox and PC does it even count as an exclusive?

console exclusive



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
drkohler said:
WoodenPints said:

 but the second option of bringing in more people to the ecosystem either on console or PC via Gamepass subs or profits from the 30% cut from third party game sales will likely be the strongest plan in the long term.

What makes you think "more people" is "more enough" to offset the $7.5B + the running costs for all the new people/real estate?

There seem to be too many people thinking "MS buys studios - MS gets more gamers" is a proven concept. But is it, really? For me, I have the nagging feeling that, once again, MS had to bail out the XBox group.

Well, bailing out Xbox is the proven strategy. Whenever MS treats its devices and services as a unified system, the company thrives: if they choose to let them work themselves out, they flounder and collapse. Case in point: Windows Phone, the Zune, Mattrick era Xbox and so on. 

If the main isn't in charge, those other divisions are going nowhere. The fact that Surface actually thrived unlike WP and the only difference was that Surface was treated as a mainline MS product instead of some external venture proves as much. 



kirby007 said:
Jranation said:
If it releases on Xbox and PC does it even count as an exclusive?

console exclusive

I think it would be great if Microsoft kept Bethesda exclusive to Xbox. It would boost console sales for Microsoft and it would force Sony to bring their A game with their own exclusives. It would be like ps3 vs 360 all over again where we were missing out if we didn't own both consoles. Only thing is that Microsoft doesn't seem that interested in winning a console war. They are looking at a much bigger picture. A future where the whole connected world will be playing Gamepass in the cloud.



Runa216 said:

CAN they turn it around? sure, of course they CAN. sony fucked up in Gen 7 and they turned it around. The thing is, they have done nothing to give me that impression. 

What would MS need to do to give you the impression that they're turning it around?  I largely agree with your critiques of the last decade of xbox. But, it seems very clear to me over the last two to three years that they are turning it around. Acquiring and building new studios, innovative new business model with Gamepass, offering multiple next generation console options.....  Basically, it's hard for me to understand what else you would want to see from them.



VAMatt said:
Runa216 said:

CAN they turn it around? sure, of course they CAN. sony fucked up in Gen 7 and they turned it around. The thing is, they have done nothing to give me that impression. 

What would MS need to do to give you the impression that they're turning it around?  I largely agree with your critiques of the last decade of xbox. But, it seems very clear to me over the last two to three years that they are turning it around. Acquiring and building new studios, innovative new business model with Gamepass, offering multiple next generation console options.....  Basically, it's hard for me to understand what else you would want to see from them.

The problem here is that what you mentioned as pros I and others see it as cons. I for one dont agree with the gamepass model as I belive it can only lead to a race to the bottom. It will just lead to smaller games that could be spit out at low cost. Building new studios is a good thing, but they are not doing that, they are buyng eisting studios wich is just depriving others of the oportunity to play thouse games. Multiple consoles is also bad as it lowerd the targeted specs of games being developed. I wana buy a console that plays the best games possible, not the besst upscaled games. I would love for MS to not try to change what gaming is know for cuz they will just damage it. If they tried to be more traditionalist then I would consider joining their ecosystem. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
eva01beserk said:
VAMatt said:

What would MS need to do to give you the impression that they're turning it around?  I largely agree with your critiques of the last decade of xbox. But, it seems very clear to me over the last two to three years that they are turning it around. Acquiring and building new studios, innovative new business model with Gamepass, offering multiple next generation console options.....  Basically, it's hard for me to understand what else you would want to see from them.

The problem here is that what you mentioned as pros I and others see it as cons. I for one dont agree with the gamepass model as I belive it can only lead to a race to the bottom. It will just lead to smaller games that could be spit out at low cost. Building new studios is a good thing, but they are not doing that, they are buyng eisting studios wich is just depriving others of the oportunity to play thouse games. Multiple consoles is also bad as it lowerd the targeted specs of games being developed. I wana buy a console that plays the best games possible, not the besst upscaled games. I would love for MS to not try to change what gaming is know for cuz they will just damage it. If they tried to be more traditionalist then I would consider joining their ecosystem. 

Well, yes, if you want gaming to stagnate, Microsoft is not delivering that at this time.  But, your concerns about reducing the quality of games going forward, or cutting off people from playing some franchises are unfounded at this point.  It is certainly possible that that happens, but it is not in line with what Microsoft is saying. So, I think we need to see those problems come about before we can consider them as negatives.

While it's obviously true that Microsoft is mostly buying studios, it is not accurate that they haven't built any.  

Anyway, my question stands. I'd like to know what the commenter wants to see from XB.  



VAMatt said:
Runa216 said:

CAN they turn it around? sure, of course they CAN. sony fucked up in Gen 7 and they turned it around. The thing is, they have done nothing to give me that impression. 

What would MS need to do to give you the impression that they're turning it around?  I largely agree with your critiques of the last decade of xbox. But, it seems very clear to me over the last two to three years that they are turning it around. Acquiring and building new studios, innovative new business model with Gamepass, offering multiple next generation console options.....  Basically, it's hard for me to understand what else you would want to see from them.

Imho looking at all the moves MS has made and the stark contrast between the upcoming launch and the Xbone philosophy, anyone saying they haven’t seen enough from MS to think they can turn it around, is someone who is never going to be turned around on MS. 



eva01beserk said:
VAMatt said:

What would MS need to do to give you the impression that they're turning it around?  I largely agree with your critiques of the last decade of xbox. But, it seems very clear to me over the last two to three years that they are turning it around. Acquiring and building new studios, innovative new business model with Gamepass, offering multiple next generation console options.....  Basically, it's hard for me to understand what else you would want to see from them.

The problem here is that what you mentioned as pros I and others see it as cons. I for one dont agree with the gamepass model as I belive it can only lead to a race to the bottom. It will just lead to smaller games that could be spit out at low cost. Building new studios is a good thing, but they are not doing that, they are buyng eisting studios wich is just depriving others of the oportunity to play thouse games. Multiple consoles is also bad as it lowerd the targeted specs of games being developed. I wana buy a console that plays the best games possible, not the besst upscaled games. I would love for MS to not try to change what gaming is know for cuz they will just damage it. If they tried to be more traditionalist then I would consider joining their ecosystem. 

That really does not work for a game service.  Why would they make smaller games for low cost.  They just purchase a publisher who makes very expensive games and you believe they will stop them from making those types of games for smaller shorter games.  Instead a game service needs a large library of different types of games, From your AAA, AA to Indie you name it. The Breath of the games is what makes people get a sub and keep the sub, not a bunch of smaller games or GAAS etc.  As others have stated, MS needs a number of exclusives that come out to the service within a given year to gain subs.  Once MS is at a certain level of Subs, the service pays for all development.  People look at gamepass and think, a game now a day cost 50 to 100 million but those only happen throughout the life of development for the game.  The service will be bringing in Billions of dollars each year.  If anything MS needs the studios they purchase to keep doing what they do best because trying to change them up to do something different or outside their specialty causes to much risk and lead to failure.  The Traditional model is going to be dead.  Apple, Google, Amazon or some big Chinese player is coming and they are looking that the subscription service.  Content is going to be king and developers will need that cushion where taking risk could mean you are out of a job because you did not meet your sells.  Actually this will also help out those mid tier type of games.  Those games where production is just high enough to cause issue selling at 70 bones or better.



Machiavellian said:
eva01beserk said:

The problem here is that what you mentioned as pros I and others see it as cons. I for one dont agree with the gamepass model as I belive it can only lead to a race to the bottom. It will just lead to smaller games that could be spit out at low cost. Building new studios is a good thing, but they are not doing that, they are buyng eisting studios wich is just depriving others of the oportunity to play thouse games. Multiple consoles is also bad as it lowerd the targeted specs of games being developed. I wana buy a console that plays the best games possible, not the besst upscaled games. I would love for MS to not try to change what gaming is know for cuz they will just damage it. If they tried to be more traditionalist then I would consider joining their ecosystem. 

That really does not work for a game service.  Why would they make smaller games for low cost.  They just purchase a publisher who makes very expensive games and you believe they will stop them from making those types of games for smaller shorter games.  Instead a game service needs a large library of different types of games, From your AAA, AA to Indie you name it. The Breath of the games is what makes people get a sub and keep the sub, not a bunch of smaller games or GAAS etc.  As others have stated, MS needs a number of exclusives that come out to the service within a given year to gain subs.  Once MS is at a certain level of Subs, the service pays for all development.  People look at gamepass and think, a game now a day cost 50 to 100 million but those only happen throughout the life of development for the game.  The service will be bringing in Billions of dollars each year.  If anything MS needs the studios they purchase to keep doing what they do best because trying to change them up to do something different or outside their specialty causes to much risk and lead to failure.  The Traditional model is going to be dead.  Apple, Google, Amazon or some big Chinese player is coming and they are looking that the subscription service.  Content is going to be king and developers will need that cushion where taking risk could mean you are out of a job because you did not meet your sells.  Actually this will also help out those mid tier type of games.  Those games where production is just high enough to cause issue selling at 70 bones or better.

He has that take in every thread when GamePass is brought up. But then he’ll also say it’s a good service with good games. It seems to be a “covering all grounds” type of situation where he wants to be right whichever way the dominos fall, like that dude who always predicts the latest Xbox hardware will be the last.

He can’t answer how Microsoft will sell gamers on a service that has a bunch of small games pooped out with no regards for quality, just focusing on timely releases. Plus it’s going up in price for most as the $1 deal expires and now theyll have to recoup this 7.5 billion somehow.



LudicrousSpeed said:
Machiavellian said:

That really does not work for a game service.  Why would they make smaller games for low cost.  They just purchase a publisher who makes very expensive games and you believe they will stop them from making those types of games for smaller shorter games.  Instead a game service needs a large library of different types of games, From your AAA, AA to Indie you name it. The Breath of the games is what makes people get a sub and keep the sub, not a bunch of smaller games or GAAS etc.  As others have stated, MS needs a number of exclusives that come out to the service within a given year to gain subs.  Once MS is at a certain level of Subs, the service pays for all development.  People look at gamepass and think, a game now a day cost 50 to 100 million but those only happen throughout the life of development for the game.  The service will be bringing in Billions of dollars each year.  If anything MS needs the studios they purchase to keep doing what they do best because trying to change them up to do something different or outside their specialty causes to much risk and lead to failure.  The Traditional model is going to be dead.  Apple, Google, Amazon or some big Chinese player is coming and they are looking that the subscription service.  Content is going to be king and developers will need that cushion where taking risk could mean you are out of a job because you did not meet your sells.  Actually this will also help out those mid tier type of games.  Those games where production is just high enough to cause issue selling at 70 bones or better.

He has that take in every thread when GamePass is brought up. But then he’ll also say it’s a good service with good games. It seems to be a “covering all grounds” type of situation where he wants to be right whichever way the dominos fall, like that dude who always predicts the latest Xbox hardware will be the last.

He can’t answer how Microsoft will sell gamers on a service that has a bunch of small games pooped out with no regards for quality, just focusing on timely releases. Plus it’s going up in price for most as the $1 deal expires and now theyll have to recoup this 7.5 billion somehow.

Just don't listen to him, Microsoft wants and need more game with high Metacritic. If anything the studios that got acquired by Microsoft have more financial freedom to take longer and make better games. 

Here what Microsoft wants on their service:



Tommy Jean, CPA, CGA