GrimThorne
Newcomer
Really? A slimmer design was all that stood between you and a purchase?
Post Xbox One Two Scorpio, what should Sony do next? *spawn* (oh, and Nintendo?)
- Thread starter mpg1
- Start date
Really? A slimmer design was all that stood between you and a purchase?
I think if there hadn't been that TV ridden launch fiasco, and 1984 DRM rummors, and xbone had launched as is today (no kinect, competitive price) the power diferential would not have hurt sales too much. It was mostly just icing on the cake at that point. The thing was a failure before launch already. They really PS3'd that launch.
If MS just rewrote the ordering of their playbook it would have netted them large.
Console preview is all about elite controller, Xbox live integration with all platforms, games with gold, w10 and UWP store, and the appropriate dashboard.
Follow up with everything else afterwards. Even having Kinect v2 is fine with the TV as long as it came after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Console preview is all about elite controller, Xbox live integration with all platforms, games with gold, w10 and UWP store, and the appropriate dashboard.
Follow up with everything else afterwards. Even having Kinect v2 is fine with the TV as long as it came after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're joking, right?
It's all about keeping Windows as the mainstream OS in the eye of the customers. If that erodes(which it already does by phones/tablets/web) further by loosing the game market the rest will follow sooner or later and then it will cost.
GrimThorne
Newcomer
I don't mean to minimize the need for public awareness about Windows. But do they honestly need gaming for that? Don't misunderstand me, I'm glad Microsoft maintains an interest in gaming, but when you look at where their big money is coming from you have to wonder how much longer this board of directors (which is not very gamer friendly to begin with) will continue to amuse themselves with this tiny market space.
Honestly I'm just looking at the kinds of returns Microsoft receives from gaming. I really worry that they one day they may conclude that it's just not worth it anymore.
Isn't It's the exclusives, not the specs that turns people's head?
On 360 era, it got a bunch of exclusives like ace combat, lost Odyssey, etc. None of that kind of stuff on x1.
On 360 era, it got a bunch of exclusives like ace combat, lost Odyssey, etc. None of that kind of stuff on x1.
The way I see it:
Software is a driving factor for all things, a factor for new hardware and a factor for new operating systems. Microsofts strategy is nearing an entire software based strategy where the idea is to get video game console to drive sales for them in the gaming space getting many PCs both weak and powerful to upgrade and purchase from the windows 10 store.
Xbox is entirely relevant because it provides three avenues for them:
1) it allows them to compete in a cutting edge space (learnings) and keeps them relevant in the consumer eye. Same sort of theory as competing in Formula 1 for some car manufacturers.
2) a new store opens up for them in the living room space where both gaming and applications can now exist in a market where previously no market for existed. They are hoping developers find something here worth while.
3) it validates their own windows store. Gaming is a large factor for driving platform sales:: see mobile space. By creating common platforms between console and PC you open up the possibility to a lot of smaller indie studios to be able to place their games onto a variety of devices. Remember market places need validity, certain stores did not have important games like angry birds and candy crush and lost out whole opportunities to compete for market share.
Apple continues to well primarily because of its developer support and that their store is known to obtain software before the other stores do.
And it's absolutely critical that windows store works otherwise their whole upgrade to windows 10 strategy nets them little revenue.
Also, MS makes a lot of revenue from Xbox Live subscriptions, possibly even more than Nintendo made all of last year. Sony made more on PSN than Nintendo did all of last year.
That would be too much revenue for any investor and CEO to simply walk away from.
That would be too much revenue for any investor and CEO to simply walk away from.
I think it's a mix. Hardcore buy the hardware and start talking well about a console in particular. The casuals use the word of mouth then: "They talk very well about the PS4", because of the things they hear or read. And it all adds. That's from my experience with friends, so take it with a grain of salt, but anyways.
Once you have the hardware though, it's another story. The Xbox One is as of now my only way to play Doom decently whenever I get the game.
Look at the kind of returns Apple makes from Gaming and you'll see why MS should be interested!
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's not the revenue that's important but the profit margin after costs. Xbox is a large business in terms of facilities and resources, compared to say the Office team. I bet I know which pulls in more profit by far.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Microsoft aren't Apple. Microsoft are not the only point of sale for software in a massive ecosystem customers willing to part with their cash. You can't just create that vertically integrated platform. Their attempt was WindowsPhone and it failed. The only way Microsoft can replicate Apple's success is by closing off Windows and making the Windows Store the only place to by software.
That assumes MS can only compete by excluding the competition. Which may be true, but hypothetically they can compete with a better service that attracts customer, such as UWP and a store that offers the best experience. At this point MS should be trying to compete, not throwing in the towel, although I do doubt their ability to pull it off successfully.
No, please read more carefully next time.
A slimmer, better looking, less external brick-ridden, more powerful design was all that stood between me and purchase.
...Which is quite a lot actually.
But does Microsoft actually need physical hardware (Xbox) on doing that?
I've always felt Microsoft greatest chance on delivering gaming services (XBL) is delivering the platform across other devices other than MS specific hardwares. Microsoft can eliminate the fat (R&D, manufacturing, logistics of storing/shipping/distribution, etc...) associated with hardware cost and focus on what it knows. OS/Apps/XBL services. Get those services effectively integrated into all manners of media devices, smart TVs and even cable TV devices. Let your OEM and service providers worry about the headaches associated with hardware manufacturing and afterwards, while reaping the benefits of those integrated services. Just saying...
Last edited:
Can you explain your reasoning why this power brick irks you so much? In any normal household it's just another dust collector at the backside of the TV/Media console.
GrimThorne
Newcomer
Okay, consider me convinced. Gaming is relevant enough to Microsoft to justify their continued investment and interest.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You used Apple's returns as the example. The reason Apple make so much is because they skim 30% on all transfers inside an ecosystem that's an order of magnitude larger than PC and console gaming. For Microsoft to make Apple numbers without closing off all other points of sale for game software on Xbox and PC, I.e. So they continue to get Live and Xbox licensing, they'd need to grow those gaming platforms by about.. ohh.. 3900%.
So you're not making a hypothetical case, you're making a cloud cuckoo-land case.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't agree or disagree. This goes back to the same issue that is often discussed in the business thread, nobody knows what Microsoft's profits/losses are in their gaming business because they deliberately do not report it.
Just because there is gold in them gaming hills, doesn't mean it's profitable to mine for it.
Why does using Apple's profits mean expecting the same level of returns? Apple shows what's possible by taking 30% of everyone else's efforts. MS want to be a major software portal taking 30% of everything to makes lots of money.
If it makes you less confused, use Valve instead of Apple. Steam took something like $3.5 billion last year and Valve took 30% of that on Microsoft's OS. So "Look at the kind of returns Valve makes from Steam and you'll see why MS should be interested!"
Similar threads
