RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
..sigh, no he has not. If anything, he's hinted at the opposite. Either way, there has been nothing confirmed on this front, so responding with an absolute "No", as you did above, is disingenuous at best.
..sigh, no he has not. If anything, he's hinted at the opposite. Either way, there has been nothing confirmed on this front, so responding with an absolute "No", as you did above, is disingenuous at best.
Those two things don't go so well together.
If the hardware is cheap, it is going to have slight profit margins. Console hardware has mostly been about licensing sales on software, which is why a successful Windows 10 execution could see MS give up on console hardware and leave the IHVs to create plug-in Windows devices as there are Android devices. they may want to keep control of a console brand now though, so it could go either way IMO.Silent_Buddha
Legend
Those two things don't go so well together.
The software licensing revenue is the margins. On a PC, MS would be competing with Steam, GOG, etc. for game sales revenue. The only way for them to make money in the actual PC space is via hardware margins (like Surface) or via software they publish themselves. The prospects for software licensing (for games) on PC is very low for Microsoft. For apps, they'll likely have the upper hand compared to the other PC electronic retail outlets.
On XBO, it's basically their store. You replace the hardware margins with software (games) margins. Video rental and purchase margins (again far more competition on an actual unlocked PC). As it's also still a console, the hardware doesn't change significantly for a long period of time, which means break even on HW costs at launch and extra revenue as time goes by. Not having other people building Xbox "clones" means they can keep a minimum level of quality, security, and performance. All of which are very important for a living room consumer device and not something you'd want to leave to an OEM. Unless you want the device to fail due to fragmentation, random performance levels, potential device issues, etc. that would be out of Microsoft's control.
They could, of course ditch the 5-8 year console cycle in favor of a 1-2 year upgrade cycle, but then that makes the machine far less desireable as a living room console, and we're back to why not just get a PC (spend more and have it last for longer). Right now consoles are in a nice place. You spend less, intially, to game than a PC. And on top of that, you're guaranteed a good gaming experience for far longer than a PC. It may not match a top end PC later in the generation (in price and performance), but games will be coded for that level of performance.
Like I said, there's still lots of benefits to maintaining a living room presence as a console/other device. It's yet another place for Windows to exist. Making it's overall installation base larger. Making it more attractive to developers. They'll be the only company in the world that will have a relatively uniform ecosystem that potentially works across Desktops, Laptops, Tablets, Phones, and Consoles. No other company currently has more than just 2 of those. Google has 2 devices (phone, tablets) for Android and 1 device (laptop) for ChromeOS. Apple has 2 devices (desktop, laptop) for OSX and 2 devices (phone, tablets) for iOS. Sony has 1 device (console) for whatever you want to call their ecosystem.
Regards,
SB
But they'd be universal. Steam is on like 80 million PCs (or 80 million accounts). Windows is on hundreds of millions. It'll also be on mobile devices - why buy Twiddly Poke on Steam when buying it on Windows Store means it's playable on your phone and tablet and PC and TV-connected box? Especially to Joe Casual who's just going to press the Store/Get Games button rather than go looking for alternative stores. MS has always made its significant amounts of money from software. They didn't even want to enter the console space! Win10 gives them, conceptually, a good exit-strategy. Maybe make a high-end pro box with good margins, but competing with the pokey little low-end markets won't be necessary.
I like Shifty's exit strategy idea. If they want, MS can make a very high quality/spec Xbox 2 (a la surface) and price it so the hardware is profitable, but it wouldn't be the only option for playing games. If gamers didn't want it or couldn't afford it, they have several other options. Seems like a win-win if MS executes properly.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
It would be a huge win for MS. Let MS go back to the days of being a limited, but high-end hardware manufacturer like they were back in the day when they made a few PC peripherals (keyboards, mice, controllers, etc) that were expensive but of higher quality than most other available options.
Do you want to play Xbox? Great, click on the Xbox app and log into your Live account. And that app can be installed on anything running Windows 10 or greater, from that $300 Dell PC you picked up at your local big box store or the $400 custom built "console" you ordered from the Microsoft Store that has a locked down OS and is meant only to be used for the Xbox app.
Windows 10 and XO integration will go as far as it can, but the actual reason is what @Silent_Buddha stated, I think.
Most people would be fine with it. (reply continues below)
If you don't have exclusive, the Xbox One would just become a redundant expense.
If all the exclusives go to the same system, say the PC, the platform would be oversaturated, which would lead to people that would have a hard time finding it difficult to stand out in between millions of software, unfairly so.
Then if all the games are multi, a console makes no sense when you can have a powerful PC. Like Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche coexist, or different brands of cereals, I like how the gaming is working these days --save for mobile stuff and a couple of issues here and there.
Great post! I think MS are trying to turn the Xbox brand into their own Steam.
That line of reasoning is not that bad.
One of the clear benefits of consoles is that the experience is unified. What you see and experience is what another user in the other side of the planet see and experience. If the game runs at 60 fps at your home it will run at 60 fps where I live. Which brings up the point, that a fixed hardware is ideal to have a locked down Windows 10 compatible device which offers the same exact experience to everyone.
However, for that hardware to be appealing it must be different and stand out.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
And right there the Xbox brand would die.
What's the one thing that people rely on with consoles in the living room? When you buy a game for it, it runs well with consistent and predictable performance.
How kindly will people think of MS if Xbox goes service only and relies purely on other people's hardware?
Oh, well, this Dell computer costs the same as the XBO, which is no longer for sale since MS exited the hardware console business. Why are my games running like absolute crap? [cue consumer rage, and Microsoft are evil F-tards] Or, why do I have to spend hundreds of dollars more on this Lenovo console PC just to run games at the same speed as the cheaper, but no longer available, XBO? [cue consumer rage about OEMs, PCs suck, Microsoft being greedy, Lenovo being greedy, etc.]
The same reason Microsoft made the Surface line is the same (well similar, not exactly the same) reason they have to maintain the Xbox console hardware.
In the case of Surface, it was to present a minimum level of quality which didn't exist because the OEMs are all faced with a race to the bottom in order to be competitive with other OEMs. To show that Windows does not mean crappy hardware and buggy experience due to OEM hardware design choices in order to make things as cheaply as possible. The only way to do this was to also price it higher than OEM alternatives (better build quality, better components [generally], and a better experience) in order to make a profit. As hardware margins are the only way to generate profit.
For the Xbox console, it's a similar thing with regards to a minimum level of gaming experience. This must be guaranteed. If a user got a random experience depending on which "Xbox" he bought (assuming OEM made consoles) then the reputation fails and likely the brand fails. This becomes even more evident when there is no way for an OEM to release a console competitive with the competition (Playstation in this case) and make a profit. They can either compete in price and be unable to run games competitively or they can compete in performance and be significantly more expensive or try to compete with inferior and unreliable hardware/build quality. All compromises that would be unacceptable. Microsoft can do it because they don't have to generate a profit from the hardware itself (unlike OEMs) as software and accessories are the main profit generators (unless you're Nintendo, although that's not working out as well for them).
It's a nice pipe dream, but it means Microsoft would basically exit the living room and hand it over to Sony (Nintendo currently aren't doing anything to make a compelling living room case).
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure Steam, might be only 80 million. But there's also GoG. As well as GmG. Amazon. Most of the publisher's have their own stores, with EA's being the largest. And a fair few other outlets.
Microsoft tried and failed once with an online PC gaming storefront. It never was even remotely successful. As such even Microsoft published games are now sold through Steam. They may or may not try it again with Windows Store (many former Windows Store exclusive games are now sold through Steam, if that says anything), but likely with similar lack of success.
As long as Xbox survives and given enough time (perhaps 5-10 years) they may be able to get some significant (25% of Steam? 50% of Steam?) level of sales. Without it, their chances go down significantly. And their chances for a presence in the living room basically disappears.
Regards,
SB
The way it would work is they'd sell the Xbox, which would be a Microsoft brand Windows PC that came with a controller and maybe a customized interface to simply operation for pure gamers. You sell Xbox branded games, that guarantee reasonable performance on any Xbox, but you allow them to run on any Windows PC if people meet the minimum specs. You buy the Xbox, you get a guarantee of stability and performance, but you're free to build an exotic, or buy a high-end gaming PC and play the games however you'd like. In the end, it's Xbox Live and the Xbox and Windows stores, so Microsoft gets your money.
It's like buying a Google Nexus phone, but you're free to go out and buy any other Android phone that you want.
It's like buying a Google Nexus phone, but you're free to go out and buy any other Android phone that you want.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
This is the first suggestion that actually makes any sense.
One thing that the "Xbox" console PC allows them to do is to cut out everything that isn't required for gaming. So the desktop and a ton of stuff that is only useful for a desktop. That allows for a leaner OS layer which means you can get the same performance with cheaper hardware. Note that not having a desktop doesn't mean not being able to run PC applications. You would lose out on things like robust multi-tasking, the ability to host VMs, Host web pages, run servers, etc. but none of that is required for a good gaming experience combined with the ability to run apps.
Which means the "official" Xbox would always be cheaper (for devices capable of running "Xbox branded" games) than anything an OEM can provide. Well that and MS wouldn't need the hardware margins that OEMs do as they'd still get software sales revenue.
Regards,
SB
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Nah, I don't think so. Nobody is suggesting that anybody will be buying an "Xbox" from anybody but MS - the very expensive high end hardware we were discussing above. Everybody is is free to run the Xbox app on whatever their compatible piece of hardware is. If their crappy PC isn't compatible with the Xbox app, just as some iOS apps aren't compatible with iPhone 1's or whatever, then they have to upgrade.
In any case, the end goal is that all you need to carry around with you is your Live ID and an Xbox controller and you can play "Xbox" on any hardware that has the app installed. Whether that's a Surface, an expensive purpose-built console from MS, or a Win10 compatible PC, why would MS care?
You think this would kill off the MS brand? I think this would lead to millions of kids who only have to bring an Xbox controller with them while they head on over to their local library and start playing Xbox for free on any available PC.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
It's the only suggestion that anybody has been talking about?
One of us is lost, because you're talking as if this "Xbox" console PC is some hypothetical future creation. It exists right now.
I don't think that's true. Console game performance varies widely from title to title - there's very little consistency. And those same consumers are well versed in choosing between low and high end devices with better performance or cheaper pricing. Picking a box that suits their purse and intentions is the basis of free market choice.
1) Why would it? DX12 etc. is all about getting the same sort of performance from PC. And XB1 is hardly a powerhouse!
2) They retain the option to buy an XB1. They'll just be able to play those games on their PC. And their Windows tablet. And then in a few years they can get a new living room PC and ditch the outdated XB1 and get a better experience. And a few years after that, MS won't need to release a new console because the hardware market will be completely covered by IHVs.
They made the Surface line because pretty much no-one was going to put Windows on a tablet when the world was entirely iOS and Android so MS had to do it themselves. If MS could have gotten Samsung et al to put Windows on their tablets, they wouldn't have bothered with Surface. Exactly the same reason they invented XBox. No-one wanted MS OS on their console, so MS felt compelled to compete on hardware.
And why doesn't your argument apply in the PC space? Why does MS not make PCs to ensure a minimum Windows experience? Why don't they have a range like Mac Pros as MS official PCs that can be relied upon to work perfectly? They instead make an OS and leave it to consumers to pick a price that suits them knowing, thanks to the basics of economics, that cheaper products are unlikely to be as good as more expensive ones and they need to pick an option that hits their quality standard and price range. It's the same with tablets and phones and PCs and TVs and there's no reason it wouldn't work just as well with 'consoles'. Windows needs its consolification to compete with Android devices. There needs to be a Windows TV box like the Nexus Player, and a Windows HDMI Dongle like Chromecast, and these are basically console-lites. If you have the same OS running on your cheapest box and your high-end PCs, what's the sense in having a discrete product outside the same ecosystem just for games?
Yep. Should be at that price!
Michellstar
Regular
How would Ms protect Live revenue with a pc xbox?? This is the biggest hindrance that i see. Moving to a game rental service??
The funny thing is, had Ms matched Sony performance we wouldn´t have this chat right now. Whoever green-lighted Durango (a larger SOC than Orbis, with a 40% power deficit) should have been fired..... they were.
I think lasts posts (mine included) belongs more to "What Ms should do next..."
The funny thing is, had Ms matched Sony performance we wouldn´t have this chat right now. Whoever green-lighted Durango (a larger SOC than Orbis, with a 40% power deficit) should have been fired..... they were.
I think lasts posts (mine included) belongs more to "What Ms should do next..."
Apple's making crazy money without a subscription fee:
Selling a gazillion times more content through the Windows Store will be far more profitable for MS than Live subscriptions on a few tends of millions of consoles.
Similar threads
