Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy

[techuse]

That's an interesting question isn't it. 'Best' frames it a little too subjectively? PlayStation throughout it's generations has had biggest breath in it's software library. You could argue for the best games of any generation sitting on other platforms.

I would think a vast majority of gamers would say PlayStation had the best software library every single generation other than against the Xbox 360. Does anyone here think any other console ever even came close?

You could argue that other consoles had individual games that were best ever game contenders, but when looking at the library as a whole, only the Xbox 360 ever competed.

 

[cheapchips]

I would say a vast majority of gamers would say PlayStation had the best software library every single generation other than against the Xbox 360. Does anyone here think any other console ever even came close?

You could argue that other consoles had individual games that were best ever game contenders, but when looking at the library as a whole, only the Xbox 360 ever competed.

I agree. If I was stuck on a desert island and could only take one complete game library, it'd be a PlayStation one. If I could only take one console and three games it wouldn't be.

 

[AmFreak]

It's not so much about when Nvidia had the first of the 79xx line ready to go in PC, it's about when they could have had a version ready to go into PS3. The question is whether Sony had commissioned Nvidia early enough to have RSX ready for mass production summer 2005. For this you're looking at Sony committing to a specific Nvidia design back in 2003 or earlier.

For example, MS were working with ATI on the 360's GPU back in early 2003 or late 2002 or something. Lots of intensive work over more than two years, and MS and ATI were still ultra squeezed on getting the thing out and "mass produced" for a limited late 2005 launch. The rush probably contributed to flaws in the GPU such as improper hotspot temperature monitoring and system airflow and a cooler that didn't take into account the hastily added HDD connector.

Even if a GPU architecture is complete it's a long road to making a semi custom console part.

The 7800 GTX which launched on PC in 2005 was on 11nm btw, and clocked at 430 mhz, slower than the 90nm PS3 part (90nm 79xx parts on PC only appeared in mid 2006 too). If the PS3 had launched in 2005 it would probably have had an even worse GPU than it did, and ceded an even bigger advantage to the 360.

You can't compare the two - one was based on a design of the future, that only existed at that time due to the 360 and took 1.5 years after the 360 launch to arrive on the pc and the other used a design that Nvidia was working on at that point in time anyway.
Here is a quote from Jen-Hsun from Dec. 2004:

"I have every expectation that we will be able to see final production silicon later on in the year," Huang commented, following the announcement earlier this month that NVIDIA is collaborating with Sony on its next-generation console format.

PS3 GPU Ready By Year End 2005? - IGN

PS3 GPU Ready By Year End 2005?

www.ign.com

So according to plan this means spring 2006 at the latest, but at that point in time end of 2005 was officially dead anyway.

 

[function]

You can't compare the two - one was based on a design of the future, that only existed at that time due to the 360 and took 1.5 years after the 360 launch to arrive on the pc and the other used a design that Nvidia was working on at that point in time anyway.

The 360's GPU was based on an unreleased, in development GPU that never made it to PC. It didn't make sense at that time for PC, but was perfect as the basis for a DX9+ console.

ATI's first PC unified shader GPU was a significantly newer architecture than Xenos and DX10.

Here is a quote from Jen-Hsun from Dec. 2004:

PS3 GPU Ready By Year End 2005? - IGN

PS3 GPU Ready By Year End 2005?

www.ign.com

So according to plan this means spring 2006 at the latest, but at that point in time end of 2005 was officially dead anyway.

End of 2005 would be too late for mass production beginning summer 2005. PS3 GPU would have been entering mass production about the same time that Nvidia's other 90nm 79xx were arriving in (by console standards) relatively modest numbers.

 

[AmFreak]

The 360's GPU was based on an unreleased, in development GPU that never made it to PC. It didn't make sense at that time for PC, but was perfect as the basis for a DX9+ console.

ATI's first PC unified shader GPU was a significantly newer architecture than Xenos and DX10.

Ya, ofc it was newer 1.5 years later, the design of the future were the unified shaders, which took 1.5 years before they arrived on the pc side of ATI.

End of 2005 would be too late for mass production beginning summer 2005. PS3 GPU would have been entering mass production about the same time that Nvidia's other 90nm 79xx were arriving in (by console standards) relatively modest numbers.

You don't need mass production in summer 2005 for a spring 2006 launch, Nvidia's first 90nm gpus launched in January of 2006, but this doesn't really matter anyway, because Sony didn't use TSMC, they used their own 90nm process node.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

The X360 library was better than the PS3 library and the Series library (good breadth of 8.5s) is quite comparable to the PS5 library (which is a few 9s and mostly remakes). The difference is the Series library needed to have more 9s to turn heads.

I do think a lot of people aren't giving MS enough credit this generation given the difficult circumstances they created for themselves in the X One era. The digital ecosystem lock down is HUGE. This was never anticipated by almost anyone on these forums or elsewhere for that matter. What this means is that MS was never realistically ever going to do better than go from 120/60 last gen to 110/70 this gen. That would have been a massive victory IMO given what we know now. I know about 100 regular video gamers and not one of them has switched teams that I know of. That's ridiculous platform lock down. When I talk to gamers out there, they aren't even thinking about the other platform really. "I have a PS4, so I'll eventually get a PS5" is pretty much the thinking among Sony gamers. That is a massive wall to climb for MS. Even now, I feel that most people around here can't recognize that. They think this gen was some kind of "fresh" gen where anything could have happened. Not the case.

Also, we went from a world where $499 was a suicide price (X One) to an era where no one cares about saving $200 (on an S over an X) when grocery bills and cost of living are up by thousands. MS was right that cost reducing would be tough, but they were wrong that anyone would really care that much given what happened with inflation. Circumstances hurt here.

That's not to say that they shouldn't have done better. Given the similarity in hardware, the ONLY way for MS to peel away some PS users was with AAA amazing 9s. They needed to create ENVY amongst PS ecosystem users with Starfield, Halo, Forza etc... 8.5s (while pretty good for existing Xbox owners) don't create envy. Redfalls actually damage the brand. 9s create envy. Forza Horizon is about the only thing I hear PS users really jealous of from time to time.

Everyone here knows that I'm a big Xbox fan, but I can afford both systems. I just only have time for one set of games and love Game Pass so I haven't bother with a PS yet. But, when I see Spider-Man or God of War or The Last of Us, I'm very tempted. Envy. MS mostly has no clue how to create it. In the Xbox days Halo created envy. In the X360 days Gears of War created envy. In the X One days Forza Horizon created envy. It's not enough though. That's why they are in the position they are in. The games are good, but not good enough to cause a PS user to switch teams. I do think they are on the right track development wise now, but it's too late and the bean counters at MS have run out the clock.

 

[BoardBonobo]

More woes for Microsoft post AB aqcuisiton:

FTC posting appeal

TL;DR:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is challenging Microsoft’s $69 billion buyout of Activision Blizzard once again. Despite previous approvals from the European Commission and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, the FTC plans to restart an in-house trial against the acquisition. However, this move is unlikely to significantly delay the deal. The worst-case scenario for Microsoft would be divestiture, but the deal is expected to proceed. The FTC’s failed attempt to block the acquisition in the US earlier this year did not prove harm to consumers, according to a court ruling. Microsoft remains focused on closing the deal, while Activision Blizzard’s CEO remains optimistic about its completion.

Basically this is because Microsoft fired 1900 staff from AB when it said in the original case: Microsoft said it would treat Activision Blizzard as a vertical acquisition and suggested that it wouldn't need to institute layoffs, since there would be no redundancies.

 

[ZebMacahan]

And bear in mind, it's a possibility that their rush to market at least in part led to the RROD fiasco. They did a lot right on the software side, but fragility of the hardware was a major, major engineering fuckup that did a good deal in squandering that early lead and positive mindshare. The 360 was synonymous with RROD as much as XBox Live in later years.

We know they lost a ton on the original Xbox due to that generous Nvidia contract - again, rushing to make the generation. The RROD likely prevented them from turning a profit with their most successful console, the 360 - if they would even be in the black without it. Xbox One was well, that, and now they're even being outsold more with the Series X. It's 23+ years of a money sink. That's a lot of rope.





Xbox has not failed to turn a profit in 22 years because of a trailer with an unattractive female lead for pete's sake. I mean the Spiderman games are full of cloying tweeness and corporate 'inclusiveness' that I find transparent and obnoxious at points too, but they're massive sellers. It's because the games have great production values and are for the most part, fun. Like when the hell has Fable ever been a system seller? As for the Halo TV series, even if it was critically acclaimed, why would it necessarily lead to a huge uplift in Xbox sales? You've still got to make the games, focusing on media spinoffs was the problem of the Xbox One in the first place.

I didn´t say a trailer released in 2023 somehow effected sales years prior to that, dont be silly.

My main point was that Xbox this generation hasnt had a single exclusive worth getting an Xbox for. I might have waited to get one if PS5s were available back then, and If I only had a PS5 now I wouldnt had a reason to get one. My friends who have PS5 reason the same way, "there are no games on it which are worth it".

I belive a big reason for this is bad management, and people calling the shots dont care about and/or dont understand games as well as they should. The Fable trailer and Halo series where examples of some people seeming to be more interrested in political activism than making money and taking good care of their IPs. This stuff happens at Sony as well, but I havent seen them being very upfront about it in their marketing material though. Did they do any game based tv series during the xbox one era? I belived it failed due to being underpowered, forcing kinekt on people and focusing on other stuff than games. Has the Mario movie and last of us series hurt Nintendo or Sony?

 

[Metal_Spirit]

Xbox 360 shows they can succeed. They just executed terribly with the Series consoles in every aspect other than hardware power.

Although Microsoft's biggest success, you have to bear in mind the PS3 was also Sony's biggest flop.
So I tend to disagree that X360 is a clean proof they can succeed.

Regardless I must agree the Xbox 360 was excelent (mine was bought at launch and I still have it fully functional, and never had a problem, even though there was the RROD fiasco) and handled in a very diferente manner.

 

[Globalisateur]

First years of X360 era was Xbox's peak. They had people confidence in Bungie's next Halos games and they had a few excellent exclusives. Unfortunately they ruined that with their Kinect initiative trying to beat Nintendo at their game.

They should have sticked to their own plan.

 

[fehu]

Kinect was cool and sold a lot to casuals, then they stopped supporting it.
They stopped before selling kinect 2...

 

[function]

My main point was that Xbox this generation hasnt had a single exclusive worth getting an Xbox for. I might have waited to get one if PS5s were available back then, and If I only had a PS5 now I wouldnt had a reason to get one. My friends who have PS5 reason the same way, "there are no games on it which are worth it".

Are you counting games on both PC and Xbox as not being exclusive? That would be fair enough.

Forza Horizon and Flight Simulator are both great, but they're also available on PC (and XBone in Horizon's case). Starfield has also sold very well, and while not everyone's cup of tea people that like it really seem to like it.

MS still haven't done well enough in terms of software though - not by a long shot. And keeping nothing exclusive to Xbox console (and off PC) even just for a year or two was overall a mistake IMO.

The Fable trailer and Halo series where examples of some people seeming to be more interrested in political activism than making money and taking good care of their IPs.

I just watched the Fable trailer again. Political activism? Where? It all seems in character for a Fable game.

 

[Cyan]

First years of X360 era was Xbox's peak. They had people confidence in Bungie's next Halos games and they had a few excellent exclusives. Unfortunately they ruined that with their Kinect initiative trying to beat Nintendo at their game.

They should have sticked to their own plan.

the X360 was all the rage, and imho games like Red Dead Redepmtion and Skyrim were its peak. The things of destiny.

Back then I remember a well educated Sony fanboy in this forum, @Titanium a guy which I liked who felt like he couldn't fight anymore for the PS, 'cos for like 99% of the arguments trying to favour the PS3 there was a reasonable counter-argument. And well, I can understand him, it had to be so tiring, anything he said about the PS3, someone would reply with solid reasoning. He was here at the wrong time when the Xbox was the best (Xbox) at his best.

That's how he felt at the time, he said he didn't have nor could muster the energy to reply and so on. I haven't seen him ever since.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

I didn´t say a trailer released in 2023 somehow effected sales years prior to that, dont be silly.

And my critique wasn't that it only affected years prior, insinuating a trailer with a less than stereotypical female lead for a game not to be released yet (and hasn't been relevant in decades) has any relevance on the success of failure of the Series line here and now is also 'silly' in and of itself.

The Halo series could be a huge hit, and the Fable trailer could have been completely different, and it would maybe make fractions of a percentage difference for Series consoles sales, because the fundamental issues still remain and a big part of that was massively fumbling the bag during the Xbox one era at a critical time when ecosystem lock-in started to really become a thing. Attributing some nebulous 'political activism' to a trillion-dollar corporation is ridiculous, their main goal is to make a profit, otherwise they wouldn't be in the position they're in.

Nobody is debating they have a 'disconnect' with gamers, that was precisely the problem with the Xbox one launch. That disconnect is not due to some nebulous skunkworks project of forced inclusivity or whatever within MS that's destroying the fundamentals of their business, their literal problem during the XBox one era was being detached corporate automatons out of touch with modern gamers and not prioritizing the creative side of the industry.

I just watched the Fable trailer again. Political activism? Where? It all seems in character for a Fable game.

Woman not otherworldly hot = wokeism, basically - at least how it played our online from what I remember when it hit amongst a certain class of gamers.

 

[Nesh]

Both and neither. Both are true. There are games I'd like to play, and games I'd like to sell. None of it has bearing on my opinion of MS wanting to open up digital resales.

I don't understand what you are arguing. Are we still talking about MS's original plans being better for gamers or not? Where does Sony come into this?

It's was more than one thing. Obviously pubs wanted a cut of the second hand market (and that might not be wrong given the state of the industry) and MS wanted a cut of the second hand market, but that was also giving consumers a benefit. Like many business ideas, it was about offering a service that people are willing to pay for, one way or another. It wasn't done for consumers but it would have benefited.

I'm gonna leave it here. That whole period was a mess and no-one knew who was saying what. We had contradicting messages come out of different corners of MS, and a lot was being said by a lot of different folk.

Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that it was exactly the same as the Cloud PR.

The digital "logistics" and complications of running a digital second hand market is too big to the point that it makes it just as impractical and financially unviable PR garbage as their promise of running cloud servers to enhance your games visually.

When MS announced their always online console they promoted how great it will be at sharing your games digitally with family and friends digitally everywhere. The second hand digital market PR came later after the outrage. Exactly the same way MS was trying to excuse the lower performance and always online using cloud, making it perform above PS4, after the outrage.

Running a second hand digital market concurrently, even with a fee, with the actual digital "units" available directly by MS and publishers/developers is bringing guaranteed cannibalization of revenue/profits of full price sales and even the planned official discounted titles.

Even if I decided to sell the used game exactly at the digital full retail price with a fee, MS and devs would be losing full revenue from the player who bought it from me instead from MS directly.

It would have created a huge incentive for people to be second hand selling games between them digitally, rather than buying them full from MS. It would have brought the issue of physical to the digital.

That's exactly why MS abandoned it. Basically it wasn't even in the cards fully as it has all the elements of a PR afterthought. Come up with a proposed solution fast towards the outrage, try to figure a way to make it work later. It was destined to fail. The economics and implementation is too hard to work around and make it functional and profitable. If not just impossible. And here is the answer why MS didn't go with it and nobody else tried it. Eliminating gradually the physical without any form of second hand market available is the guaranteed profit maximization solution.

 

[Cyan]

When MS announced their always online console they promoted how great it will be at sharing your games digitally with family and friends digitally everywhere. The second hand digital market PR came later after the outrage. Exactly the same way MS was trying to excuse the lower performance and always online using cloud, making it perform above PS4, after the outrage.

Microsoft is the smartest company in the world. They say one thing today, but things might change later and they end up getting away with it. That's why they are the 1st company in the world right now, beating the all mighty Apple. I coudln't even imagine what would happen if they stayed in the phone business, they could be 2 times Apple or more.

 

[ZebMacahan]

Are you counting games on both PC and Xbox as not being exclusive? That would be fair enough.

Forza Horizon and Flight Simulator are both great, but they're also available on PC (and XBone in Horizon's case). Starfield has also sold very well, and while not everyone's cup of tea people that like it really seem to like it.

MS still haven't done well enough in terms of software though - not by a long shot. And keeping nothing exclusive to Xbox console (and off PC) even just for a year or two was overall a mistake IMO.



I just watched the Fable trailer again. Political activism? Where? It all seems in character for a Fable game.

Haven´t thought about that, but the people I know who have no plans of getting an Xbox either have good a PC or have stated theres no reason to get one if they have a PC which also is more powerful. So I suppose "PC = not xbox exclusive".
The big xbox games seem to be different kinds of games as well. They dont seem to have much in AAA story driven action adventure games like sony excel at. Flight simulator is a very different kind of game. Many people who like Bethesda would probably like Starfield I suppose, when comparing their big titles like Starfield, Halo infinite and Redfall they look like a generation or more behind stuff like Spiderman, Horizon or God of War. The only xbox title I can think of which looks as good is Forza Horizon. I agree, MS should be able produce much better software, and I dont think its helping them not keeping things exclusive.

I dont remember fables women looking that much like dudes. If I had the seen that trailer in a vacum I probably wouldnt have seen it as political activism, I would probably just thought it was weird that she made her so ugly. But in this day and age Im leaning towards "if it looks like a duck."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Running a second hand digital market concurrently, even with a fee, with the actual digital "units" available directly by MS and publishers/developers is bringing guaranteed cannibalization of revenue/profits of full price sales and even the planned official discounted titles.

I think that explains why it was finally rejected. It would have been great for consumers, but these digital sales showed consumers were going to buy games anyway. Barely even need offer a refund option either. Sony's service is far from great but it makes them truck loads of cash, so why mess it up? Same for MS. Second hand sales were important to the industry when they were considering this, with AAA games being sold once and played many times and the publishers being cut out of income for those plays, and so making money on resales was considered a way to increase revenue (also for pubs). As things moved digital, that killed the resale market itself without any intervention required.

I don't think that changes the interpretation of events. Indeed, I'd even say you've explained your own question marks over why, if MS intended it originally, is there no alternative digital resale system. Events fit the narrative that MS intended this from the start, communicated it badly, then reconsidered and gave up, just as well as they fit the narrative MS had no intention of a digital second hand market, made it up on the spot, then gave up when they failed to counter the backlash.

 

[Nesh]

It does change it, because if it was preplanned concurrently with the physical DRM to fight the used market, it means that they already made their research beforehand to implement it, which it would have showed MS that it was impossible. But it either didn't because it was not part of the plan, or they threw it in to communicate a false benefit that they knew they were going to cancel to communicate a false good intention. Therefore the suggestion that gamers missed out/would have been better off, because of bad communication of something great that was going to happen, is not valid, because there was no room for it to happen to begin with.

 

[function]

I dont remember fables women looking that much like dudes. If I had the seen that trailer in a vacum I probably wouldnt have seen it as political activism, I would probably just thought it was weird that she made her so ugly. But in this day and age Im leaning towards "if it looks like a duck."

My dude, it seems like you might be caught up in this whole "woke vs anti-woke" manufactured, Pavlov's Dog-esque maelstrom of reactionary posturing.

It's a face scan and performance capture of an actual real woman. An attractive one IMHO. And she's a theatre actress - the kind of person you'd hire to do this.

The face proportions, eye brows and even the individual freckles are exact. This is a real woman.

The human race is in trouble is this woman's actual real face is perceived as "political activism" and to be intended to "look like a dude".

Fable isn't and never has been supposed to look like a pro-photoshoot of models that you're supposed to chuff your meat chap over. It's a world of dirt and black humour.