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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft is unhappy with the state of the Xbox (should Spencer be substituted?)

Azzanation said:
SKMBlake said:

The boot sound

That boot sound was a game changer for sure.

That boot sound still lives in my head, rent free for so many years. 

I've yet to hear a console booting up sound that makes me sit back and relax like the PS1's did.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
Azzanation said:

Xbox will go 3rd party next gen focusing on Cloud. We actually dont need Xbox hardware anymore when they can make more money without losing billions on RnD.

Not a chance in hell and anyone who likes Xbox games or GamePass should not want this. There’s no reason Nintendo or Sony would ever allow GamePass in their ecosystem, and cloud gaming still mostly sucks.



LudicrousSpeed said:
Azzanation said:

Xbox will go 3rd party next gen focusing on Cloud. We actually dont need Xbox hardware anymore when they can make more money without losing billions on RnD.

Not a chance in hell and anyone who likes Xbox games or GamePass should not want this. There’s no reason Nintendo or Sony would ever allow GamePass in their ecosystem, and cloud gaming still mostly sucks.

GP doesn't have to be on Nintendo or PS, they can just sell their games separately or create a 1st Party games only GP for those systems. Similar to how PCs have a different GP library etc.



Azzanation said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Not a chance in hell and anyone who likes Xbox games or GamePass should not want this. There’s no reason Nintendo or Sony would ever allow GamePass in their ecosystem, and cloud gaming still mostly sucks.

GP doesn't have to be on Nintendo or PS, they can just sell their games separately or create a 1st Party games only GP for those systems. Similar to how PCs have a different GP library etc.

MS has a huge stable of studios, it doesn’t make any sense for Nintendo or Sony to allow an “Xbox Studios only” GamePass on their platform when they stand to make way more money on each copy sold.

But this is dreaming, anyway. Spencer has already said Xbox hardware isn’t going anywhere. 



LudicrousSpeed said:
Azzanation said:

GP doesn't have to be on Nintendo or PS, they can just sell their games separately or create a 1st Party games only GP for those systems. Similar to how PCs have a different GP library etc.

MS has a huge stable of studios, it doesn’t make any sense for Nintendo or Sony to allow an “Xbox Studios only” GamePass on their platform when they stand to make way more money on each copy sold.

But this is dreaming, anyway. Spencer has already said Xbox hardware isn’t going anywhere. 

EA Play is the best example of this. MS know they can sell just as many games if not more if they drop Xbox Hardware and move content on Nintendo and PS.

The only reason people want Xbox around is to keep Sony in check, well I would love to be their once that's the reality. People are quick to change their minds on a brand the moment they are not around anymore. 



Around the Network

EA Play is not even close to GamePass, and EA doesn’t have the studios or games Microsoft has.

EA games come to EA Play long after release, when they are pretty much done selling and are heavily discounted. Xbox games launch day one into the service.

Why would Sony, for example, want a service in their ecosystem where a game like Elder Scrolls VI will be available to subscribers day one included in a small monthly or yearly fee? At best Sony would get a small piece of every GamePass subscriber, where as they get a good piece of every copy sold, whether physical or digital. It also disrupts the sales of their own games.

It’s also not as good a deal for MS. They can subsidize the loss of revenue by games on GamePass selling less by getting the full piece of the pie of the actual sold copies, plus all the monetization, plus a piece of every third party game and MTX on their store. Not to mention XBLG. In your scenario they now get no Gold revenue, they don’t make anything from third party sales, they now have to give Sony a piece of GamePass subs, and they have to give Sony a piece of every game and monetization transaction.

Doesn’t add up for MS. They make way more money as a hardware company, even a third place hardware company.



LudicrousSpeed said:

EA Play is not even close to GamePass, and EA doesn’t have the studios or games Microsoft has.

EA games come to EA Play long after release, when they are pretty much done selling and are heavily discounted. Xbox games launch day one into the service.

Why would Sony, for example, want a service in their ecosystem where a game like Elder Scrolls VI will be available to subscribers day one included in a small monthly or yearly fee? At best Sony would get a small piece of every GamePass subscriber, where as they get a good piece of every copy sold, whether physical or digital. It also disrupts the sales of their own games.

It’s also not as good a deal for MS. They can subsidize the loss of revenue by games on GamePass selling less by getting the full piece of the pie of the actual sold copies, plus all the monetization, plus a piece of every third party game and MTX on their store. Not to mention XBLG. In your scenario they now get no Gold revenue, they don’t make anything from third party sales, they now have to give Sony a piece of GamePass subs, and they have to give Sony a piece of every game and monetization transaction.

Doesn’t add up for MS. They make way more money as a hardware company, even a third place hardware company.

Keep making new consumer hardware is what doesn't add up for MS. Much easier to invest in Azure and get Gamepass xCloud on TVs and mobile phones. GP doesn't need Sony nor Nintendo at all. MS has already been working on a streaming stick for xCloud but it's still too early (can't make it cheap enough yet to make it an impulse buy)

It's all summed up in here
https://www.techradar.com/news/xbox-streaming-stick-everything-we-know-so-far

At E3 2021, Microsoft revealed its intentions to move beyond its traditional console hardware platforms for its cloud gaming services.

“Xbox is working with global TV manufacturers to embed the Xbox experience directly into internet-connected televisions with no extra hardware required except a controller,” it said in a press release, suggesting TV manufacturers would soon be offering a built-in Xbox app, ready to stream games from the cloud. There’s already precedent for this from Samsung, which offers the Steam Link app on its web connected TV sets.

On top of this, and most crucially, Liz Hamren, CVP of gaming experiences & platforms at Xbox, revealed that Xbox is “also developing standalone streaming devices that you can plug into a TV or monitor, so if you have a strong internet connection, you can stream your Xbox experience.” 

....

"Our vision for Xbox Cloud Gaming is unwavering, our goal is to enable people to play the games they want, on the devices they want, anywhere they want. As announced last year, we’ve been working on a game-streaming device, codename Keystone, that could be connected to any TV or monitor without the need for a console."

...

According to Grubb and Warren, Microsoft will launch the stick as part of a wider Xbox Everywhere project, an initiative designed to extend Xbox Cloud Gaming's reach to more devices, markets, and players. The idea is to make Xbox streaming more accessible than ever by giving potential players, who would otherwise be turned off by the cost of expensive gaming hardware, an affordable means of hopping aboard the Xbox Game Pass.


And we've all seen how that has turned out with video content. The DVD years of console gaming are over. We're on the verge of a major disruption in the way games are consumed. Whether you like it or not, streaming is the future. Downloading and playing local will be the Vinyl of the future.

I certainly don't like the forecast, I still buy CDs, Blu-Rays and physical game discs when possible. In a decade or two, downloading a game can be added to that list as well. PC will survive of course, but not so sure about consoles. PS6 sure, PS7?



Beyond traditional console hardware doesn’t mean replacing hardware, just means in addition to. They’ve also said there will always be hardware and streaming will be years away from being viable for the mainstream. This is generations away from being feasible to game on. Watching a movie or listening to music via streaming is not the same thing as gaming lol.



Azzanation said:
twintail said:

Nah. This take had been incredibly bad for a long time, and still is. Because it makes it sound like Sony has been given a free pass, when in reality they've put in a lot of work to get to where they are. 

Sony literally entered the market and took everything that made Nintendo market leader at the time and moved them to PS

Always interesting seeing people leave out that minor detail.

Would have to disagree here. Sony's success against Sega and Nintendo came from 3 things:

1) Arcades and Namco: arcades were massively relevant and Namco and Sony formed the perfect partnership to offer that arcade experience at home with Tekken, Ridge Racer, Time Crisis and Soul Calibur.

2) Price: it was cheaper than the Saturn

3) CD: although people have this story of Sony money hatting for FF7, it's been reiterated over and over the CD is what sold Square on making the game on the PS1. 

4) peripherals: dance mats, light guns, memory card to take your save with you

5) a metric shit ton of games and often much cheaper than the competition. This still goes today as Nintendo barely drops the prices of their games or systems.

Edit: I said 3 things and listed 5 🤦🏽‍♂️



Fei-Hung said:
Azzanation said:

Sony literally entered the market and took everything that made Nintendo market leader at the time and moved them to PS

Always interesting seeing people leave out that minor detail.

Would have to disagree here. Sony's success against Sega and Nintendo came from 3 things:

1) Arcades and Namco: arcades were massively relevant and Namco and Sony formed the perfect partnership to offer that arcade experience at home with Tekken, Ridge Racer, Time Crisis and Soul Calibur.

2) Price: it was cheaper than the Saturn

3) CD: although people have this story of Sony money hatting for FF7, it's been reiterated over and over the CD is what sold Square on making the game on the PS1. 

4) peripherals: dance mats, light guns, memory card to take your save with you

5) a metric shit ton of games and often much cheaper than the competition. This still goes today as Nintendo barely drops the prices of their games or systems.

Edit: I said 3 things and listed 5 🤦🏽‍♂️

What was organic with the PS1 without relying on taking what was made successful by its competitors? Sony's success was admitted with their very own documentary of the PS1 in Playstation Museum. They mentioned that they could not complete with Nintendo and Sega's well-established IPs so they needed to round up 3rd party developers. These developers didn't just switch from the market leader console to a console unknown if it would sell well for nothing. Sony had to convince them. 

Square's CEO at the time said the reason Square and Nintendo's relationship fell apart was due to the fact Sony offered Square a deal they knew Nintendo could not match and knew if they accepted it, Nintendo would be mad. Nintendo told square if you sign with Sony dont come back. Hence no FF games on Nintendo systems for generations.

CDs and 3D tech at the time weren't on majority of devs radar. Many had zero experience with 3D tech and CDs loading times weren't attractive. It took Segas Virtual Fighter to help Sony convince devs to switch to PS1.

Sony literally did everything they can to round up 3rd party developers to support the console. It wasn't organic.