Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion

What will Xbox do

  • Player owned digital libraries now on cloud

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Multiplatform all exclusives to all platforms

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Multiplatform only select exclusive titles

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Surface hardware strategy

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • 3rd party hardware strategy

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Mobile hardware strategy

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Slim Revision hardware strategy

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • This will be a nothing burger

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • *new* Xbox Games for Mobile Strategy

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • *new* Executive leadership changes (ie: named leaders moves/exits/retires)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
I'd hope they don't increase storage or amount of GDDR memory next gen to reduce costs.

1 terabyte of nand is enough, just add 4gb of DDR5 for the OS to free up GDDR7 for games.
Right now games on PS5 have 12.5 gb of memory for games, and around 10 gb as graphics memory. Adding DDR5 would increase that to 16 for games and around 13 for graphics.

Textures are fine right now, cyberpunk runs with path tracing on a 8gb GPU, I hope they don't waste BOM on 32gb. At most, 24 would be good.

Edit: on Dram exchange, on Dram contract price, 4gb of ddr4 is 1,4 dollars. It would be pretty cheap.
 
Last edited:
I'd hope they don't increase storage or amount of GDDR memory next gen to reduce costs.

1 terabyte of nand is enough, just add 4gb of DDR5 for the OS to free up GDDR7 for games.
Right now games on PS5 have 12.5 gb of memory for games, and around 10 gb as graphics memory. Adding DDR5 would increase that to 16 for games and around 13 for graphics.

Textures are fine right now, cyberpunk runs with path tracing on a 8gb GPU, I hope they don't waste BOM on 32gb. At most, 24 would be good.
Cyberpunk textures are pretty awful to accommodate fitting a raytraced presentation in an 8GB buffer.
 
Cyberpunk textures are pretty awful to accommodate fitting a raytraced presentation in an 8GB buffer.
Across most games, texture quality is pretty good, it's not really the bottleneck in visuals that it was years ago. Even the best PS4 games have really good textures.

Cyberpunk, even on medium textures, doesn't really have "awful" textures, honestly (aside from some spots like the landfill).
 
I don't see consoles getting 32gb. Maybe if we get pro consoles at launch for 800€/$.
I think Sony's decision to price at $699 has misled a lot of people. They are making a handsome profit on the PS5 pro at $699. They could have priced it at $499 for a 1TB model. But $699(250 extra) for a newer GPU processor and an extra GB of storage seems a bit steep to me. The cost of memory and storage have plummeted significantly and its not like they got a whole new CPU as well. They're still using a CPU from 2020. I think Sony is going to have a higher profit margin on the PS5 pro than it did on the PS4 pro with current prices. But in response to you, 32GB of storage on next gen wont be an issue at all. Current gen consoles memory costs are not prohibitive at all they are paying in the $50 area for 16GB of GDDR6.

Memory Costs have plummeted

And have continued to fall

Vfa2kZbhfRtxatptYquv4P-1200-80.jpg.webp


If we follow this regression, DRAM prices drop by 5% YoY.
So to keep the same prices today but to double the DRAM would require the following:
Basically inverse principal interest, or rather principal decay formula:

It will take approximately 13.5 years for $100 to decrease to $50 with a 5% annual reduction.
That's when they can keep the same price point but double the memory to 32GB.

This generation released in 2020, so we are looking at 2033/34 approximately to get to 32GB of memory if we want to hold the 499 price point.

Flash storage however will gain double the storage every 3 years for the same price point. The 2TB is overpriced today in theory. By 5 years it should be 1/4 the price we paid in 2020. And 8.8 years to be 1/10th the amount we paid, so by next gen (2028) flash memory could be nearly 10x greater with the same amount of $ used on storage today.

We can probably leverage the savings in the storage to help increase the DRAM pool here by next gen.
So assume next generation is 2028.
DRAM prices will be down 34% from 2020.
Storage prices are down 88% from 2020.

It's possible that 32GB is in the cards, but all of those savings would mean the console is stuck at 1TB in 2028.

We haven't accounted for silicon prices and cooling that silicon however.
To double the power of todays consoles (actually double, not double submission) we need to move from 15.4B transistors to 30B transistors approximately, possibly more. If the cost per transistor doesn't come down (lets say it has marginal decreases in cost), you're basically doubling the cost of the chip here.

So we need to ensure some of those storage savings also need to cover the cost of silicon increases, and we haven't yet touched on cooling yet, or the fact that more transistors will naturally require more bandwidth, so having 32GB of DRAM combined with doubling the bandwidth will mean significantly costs, essentially 16 chips of 2GB which is a 512-bit bus.
The issue with your analysis is you're using 2020 projected figures from MS yet current spot prices show they are paying less than $27 for 8GB of GDDR6, thats at most $50 for 16GB of ram on the consoles today. But first, the most expensive part of the current gen consoles besides the processors was the disk storage which has plummeted in price. IIRC correctly it was between $100-$150 for either the Series X or PS5 with the Series X on the cheaper end of the SSD and cost. But the cost of flash storage has plummeted, Sony and MS arent paying anywhere close to $100 for the 1TB of storage that comes with the consoles today. As well the cost of memory has plummeted over the lifetime of the current gen consoles and continues to trend downwards.

Memory Costs have plummeted

And have continued to fall

I dont see 32GB of unified memory as an issue at all for next gen consoles at the start of the gen and definitely not during the lifetime of those systems. If anything it makes the most sense to get as much memory at the start of the gen as possible. And at the millions of chips MS and Sony buy its hard to believe they wont get good deals on this.
 
I think Sony's decision to price at $699 has misled a lot of people. They are making a handsome profit on the PS5 pro at $699. They could have priced it at $499 for a 1TB model. But $699(250 extra) for a newer GPU processor and an extra GB of storage seems a bit steep to me. The cost of memory and storage have plummeted significantly and its not like they got a whole new CPU as well. They're still using a CPU from 2020. I think Sony is going to have a higher profit margin on the PS5 pro than it did on the PS4 pro with current prices. But in response to you, 32GB of storage on next gen wont be an issue at all. Current gen consoles memory costs are not prohibitive at all they are paying in the $50 area for 16GB of GDDR6.

Memory Costs have plummeted

And have continued to fall


The issue with your analysis is you're using 2020 projected figures from MS yet current spot prices show they are paying less than $27 for 8GB of GDDR6, thats at most $50 for 16GB of ram on the consoles today. But first, the most expensive part of the current gen consoles besides the processors was the disk storage which has plummeted in price. IIRC correctly it was between $100-$150 for either the Series X or PS5 with the Series X on the cheaper end of the SSD and cost. But the cost of flash storage has plummeted, Sony and MS arent paying anywhere close to $100 for the 1TB of storage that comes with the consoles today. As well the cost of memory has plummeted over the lifetime of the current gen consoles and continues to trend downwards.

Memory Costs have plummeted

And have continued to fall

I dont see 32GB of unified memory as an issue at all for next gen consoles at the start of the gen and definitely not during the lifetime of those systems. If anything it makes the most sense to get as much memory at the start of the gen as possible. And at the millions of chips MS and Sony buy its hard to believe they wont get good deals on this.
They are making a handsome profit on the pro alright, of that I'm sure. Just aren't positive on how much the weak yen influences things.

But even with the nand and memory costs decreasing, they still haven't done a price cut of the base console. So with that, saving the maximum amount on storage and memory to invest everything on the SOC seems like the thing that makes the most sense to me.
 
They are making a handsome profit on the pro alright, of that I'm sure. Just aren't positive on how much the weak yen influences things.

But even with the nand and memory costs decreasing, they still haven't done a price cut of the base console. So with that, saving the maximum amount on storage and memory to invest everything on the SOC seems like the thing that makes the most sense to me.
I think it has to be a balance as well as consider what developers want. One thing for sure is they will ask for more memory and memory bandwidth especially with more accelerators that are memory bandwidth intensive like RT. Double the memory and the memory bandwidth. Its still far out though, By the time those systems launch GDDR7 will be a bit old.
 
They are making a handsome profit on the pro alright, of that I'm sure. Just aren't positive on how much the weak yen influences things.

But even with the nand and memory costs decreasing, they still haven't done a price cut of the base console. So with that, saving the maximum amount on storage and memory to invest everything on the SOC seems like the thing that makes the most sense to me.
On the spot pricing is not the same as standard contract pricing.
So this wouldn't apply to the consoles of today.
Its like taking a fixed mortgage versus variable.

You get a better fixed contract rate the longer you go, and you can base your console around those prices. Variable you can catch big drops, but you're in the shitter if the prices skyrocket. I don't think these console manufacturers will ever ride the 'on the spot' pricing, and I'm not sure how strong of a indicator that is for prices paid by manufacturers that need to control costs to the single dollar amount.

I agree that prices are coming down, but that's not reflective yet on the GPU market. We are still seeing high end cards stuck around that 12GB range today. There are loads more factors involved here in getting more VRAM into the system.
 
On the spot pricing is not the same as standard contract pricing.
So this wouldn't apply to the consoles of today.
Its like taking a fixed mortgage versus variable.

You get a better fixed contract rate the longer you go, and you can base your console around those prices. Variable you can catch big drops, but you're in the shitter if the prices skyrocket. I don't think these console manufacturers will ever ride the 'on the spot' pricing, and I'm not sure how strong of a indicator that is for prices paid by manufacturers that need to control costs to the single dollar amount.
Sony and MS lock in the prices, why go for variable rates and increase uncertainty? You can always renegotiate if prices go well below or above whats set in the contract. I dont buy that they simply go with the flow considering they have to buy these chips in the millions. If anything MS or Sony are getting better deals than we can even find via public sources. It makes sense for chip makers like Micron to lock in stable revenue from console manufacturers
 
Sony and MS lock in the prices, why go for variable rates and increase uncertainty? You can always renegotiate if prices go well below or above whats set in the contract. I dont buy that they simply go with the flow considering they have to buy these chips in the millions. If anything MS or Sony are getting better deals than we can even find via public sources. It makes sense for chip makers like Micron to lock in stable revenue from console manufacturers
I agree they wouldn't go with variable rates, which is why I'm not sure if the recent 'crash' in memory pricing is what is reflected in the graph provided by MS, which I suspect are the graphs of standard contract pricing with purchasing discounts for large volume.
 
I agree they wouldn't go with variable rates, which is why I'm not sure if the recent 'crash' in memory pricing is what is reflected in the graph provided by MS, which I suspect are the graphs of standard contract pricing with purchasing discounts for large volume.
Which goes back to them negotiating better deals. There's always a trigger price at which they renegotiate. Either they were getting them at such low prices or they had to renegotiate with Micron for a better deal.
 
Less sales means a higher price to recover the R&D cost for the Pro design. On top of that the old console subsidisation doesn't work anymore so asking higher prices to compensate for the loss is another factor.

So the price hike doesn't really surprise me.
 
Rumor is that there will be 3rd party xb.

It seems MS will produce a APU for home console and another for handheld console, but the frequency depends on 3rd party. Maybe 1.5~1.6 GHz for entry xb and 3.0~3.1 GHz for expensive xb.
 
Last edited:
Rumor is that there will be 3rd party xb.

It seems MS will produce a APU for home console and another for handheld console, but the frequency depends on 3rd party. Maybe 1.5~1.6 GHz for entry xb and 3.0~3.1 GHz for expensive xb.
What is the benefit of MS if 3rd party companies sell their console variants with extra profit and are available to customers more expensively?
 
People just writing whatever they want about Xbox, lol. No one has a clue where we are headed as an industry. It's pretty clear there are issues, and everyone is looking to discover a new way to move forward and the traditional model is struggling to provide sufficient profits. Everyone is on the move, MS is just taking bigger strides in doing so.

I'm seeing a trend of convergence of platforms, but that's about it. It's clear Xbox wants to diversify away from the need of hardware, and move into a space where cloud streaming and localized games on their own storefront are available directly onto mobile phones or mobile devices. The xbox console will stick around for as long as players want it, but they are eyeing various different markets for growth now. How they intend to achieve that is still up in the air, but it does appear that, Series consoles will be around for a while, I'm not expecting a new generation of console anytime soon.

The new mobile phones, if powerful enough to be a substitute for a xbox one level of power, makes a great case for porting many of their titles, in particular their F2P titles like Halo, Gears etc. on their own mobile store front. They have already taken the step to merge xbox app with gamepass, all they need to do is move a storefront into that app and they are complete there to become a single stop gaming application for anyone with a mobile device.
 
They have already taken the step to merge xbox app with gamepass, all they need to do is move a storefront into that app and they are complete there to become a single stop gaming application for anyone with a mobile device.

I wonder if Google/Apple's insistence on a cut of sales might preclude that? Much like any videos purchased/rented on Amazon Prime.

The PlayStation store operates as normal on Android though, so maybe not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
People just writing whatever they want about Xbox, lol. No one has a clue where we are headed as an industry. It's pretty clear there are issues, and everyone is looking to discover a new way to move forward and the traditional model is struggling to provide sufficient profits. Everyone is on the move, MS is just taking bigger strides in doing so.
I see these companies making mistakes and causing their own troubles rather than it all just them being victims of some greater market problem. Everybody seems to just blindly swallow this narrative that this is just 'how things are' without really looking at how much things would be different if these companies simply made better decisions(and/or games) to begin with.

And I dont know that I'd call Microsoft's strategy being 'on the move' or 'big strides'. It's more like they fell trying to do a little trick, and instead of getting up and having a laugh about it and doing better, they stayed on the ground and are flopping around performatively as if it was totally just part of their plan.

The new mobile phones, if powerful enough to be a substitute for a xbox one level of power, makes a great case for porting many of their titles, in particular their F2P titles like Halo, Gears etc. on their own mobile store front. They have already taken the step to merge xbox app with gamepass, all they need to do is move a storefront into that app and they are complete there to become a single stop gaming application for anyone with a mobile device.
Gears of War is not F2P. I dont think MS really have all that many games that would make sense for this(that aren't already on mobile).

And you cant really sell $60-70 games on mobile, so they'd definitely need to have to sell them outside the same ecosystem as console/PC.

but it does appear that, Series consoles will be around for a while, I'm not expecting a new generation of console anytime soon.
I mean, a lot of rumors swirling that they are actually gonna try some new generation console in 2026. And it will be one of the dumbest things they've ever done if they really go through with it.
 
Last edited:
I see these companies making mistakes and causing their own troubles rather than it all just them being victims of some greater market problem. Everybody seems to just blindly swallow this narrative that this is just 'how things are' without really looking at how much things would be different if these companies simply made better decisions(and/or games) to begin with.
I don't think anyone is blindly swallowing a narrative.
The games industry has had a ton of change starting with last generation.

1. Firstly, the market dynamics have rapidly changed and preferences have evolved dramatically towards Nintendo and Sony. No longer are people interested in Xbox properties, as they directly competed with the market of forever titles. And forever titles won out. When Call of Duty arrived, Halo was forever finished. Then it became battle royale, and it's just been an on-going change of games in that forever game space, that is where all the players are, that is where the industry is growing in terms of revenue, but at the same time, all the other titles aren't really getting a piece of that revenue. The big titles are just getting richer over time. All GaaS titles must be multiplatform to drive populations to stay forever, and that runs contradictory to why platforms make games exclusive to their own hardware.

2. Technological advancements have slowed dramatically and the cost point has risen exponentially. The rate of change from graphics generation to generation is less, and the cost point higher. Once again, see point 1 as to why a developer won't target the highest end spec, the largest population of gamers are playing games that are 10 years or older. I don't want to get into the fact that the latest generation of gamers are completely happy playing with block based characters.

3. MS lost the war against Sony in the XBO era. In particular they lost during a time in which digital lock in became a thing for consoles. Digital lock-in is so powerful that steam will likely be the undisputed digital platform for games, forever on PC, look at the billions spent by Epic to try to penetrate into that market. No luck. So once the winners are declared what should the losers do, I'm sure if the answer was so simple, they would love to hear from you.

4. Everything costs a hell of a lot more to make and produce, and that's for all industries and especially now for AAA titles. If you make AAA titles, you expect AAA returns, but what game developers are finding repeatedly is that these forever titles cost significantly less to make, and drive significantly more revenue and worse of all, they have a gravity that draws all new players as well. We lack a proper discovery mechanism in which to drive players away from forever titles to new titles as the cost point is too high versus the _free_ price point of these forever titles. The platform holders, including Sony are all struggling to reposition themselves with these changes, otherwise why would Sony fight so hard to stop Xbox from owning CoD and WoW and Overwatch? In a pair of acquisitions they are now owners of some of the largest forever franchises.

5. Referring back to point 4, what is the point of spending all this money making niche games if they can't find new gamers to play them? You cannot forever target 40 to 50 year old gamers, eventually they will stop gaming, what will you do then. The games of the today's youth are not the same games we liked to play as children. And businesses do not have the same lifespan as people. Businesses must continually adapt to changing preferences as the 'first major gaming generation' will be exiting the market, while the next generation of gamers who grew up playing on mobile devices and f2p titles are moving in. They aren't used to paying $80 per title. They are used to subscription services. They are used to playing games with user generated content. They are used to multiplatform experiences and in-game purchases. All the things that the oldest generation of gamers loathe.

***

I think I'm just touching on some major changes in the industry, but I think it's quite reductive to just say companies are causing their own troubles here. They are trying to adapt to a changing market. I think the difference between Sony and MS is that MS gave up on the older generation of gamers somewhere during the XBO era while Sony doubled down on them. Sony owns the majority of the older gamer console market today, and the 5Pro and all that is just more pandering for that audience, but I think Sony now has its sights on trying to capture the younger generation of gamers and failing just as spectacularly as everyone else is.

No platform holder today, has a strategy to dethrone F2P forever titles. Certainly Nintendo is the closest here, but they literally moved into the mobile space to do it. And among all large AAA studios who aren't in ownership of a forever title, many are failing to find the revenue to keep their business afloat. See Ubisoft for instance, their only saving grace is R6 Siege, and all their other titles are barely profitable if profitable at all.

From my POV, I don't see how you can just say these companies are causing their own mistakes, they were there back in the day making the games that people loved and riding a huge wave of success and profits. They knew how to accomplish that, and I don't think saying that they need to go back to those days will suddenly make it work for them. Because clearly that's false, as only a handful of franchises can rinse and repeat annually, while keeping their audiences satisfied. For everyone else that cannot, they are struggling to create the innovation or find the audiences to play their games.
 
Last edited:
People just writing whatever they want about Xbox, lol. No one has a clue where we are headed as an industry. It's pretty clear there are issues, and everyone is looking to discover a new way to move forward and the traditional model is struggling to provide sufficient profits. Everyone is on the move, MS is just taking bigger strides in doing so.

I'm seeing a trend of convergence of platforms, but that's about it. It's clear Xbox wants to diversify away from the need of hardware, and move into a space where cloud streaming and localized games on their own storefront are available directly onto mobile phones or mobile devices. The xbox console will stick around for as long as players want it, but they are eyeing various different markets for growth now. How they intend to achieve that is still up in the air, but it does appear that, Series consoles will be around for a while, I'm not expecting a new generation of console anytime soon.

The new mobile phones, if powerful enough to be a substitute for a xbox one level of power, makes a great case for porting many of their titles, in particular their F2P titles like Halo, Gears etc. on their own mobile store front. They have already taken the step to merge xbox app with gamepass, all they need to do is move a storefront into that app and they are complete there to become a single stop gaming application for anyone with a mobile device.
Yes indeed. I think they will still release another home console in a few years just because they still have paying customers on that ecosystem. And they still sell much more Xboxes than Steam sell their handheld if I am not mistaken. So they may try doing a handheld instead of a weaker second console next time.

Besides we really need competition against Sony new arrogant posture.
 
I don't think anyone is blindly swallowing a narrative.
The games industry has had a ton of change starting with last generation.

1. Firstly, the market dynamics have rapidly changed and preferences have evolved dramatically towards Nintendo and Sony. No longer are people interested in Xbox properties, as they directly competed with the market of forever titles. And forever titles won out. When Call of Duty arrived, Halo was forever finished. Then it became battle royale, and it's just been an on-going change of games in that forever game space, that is where all the players are, that is where the industry is growing in terms of revenue, but at the same time, all the other titles aren't really getting a piece of that revenue. The big titles are just getting richer over time. All GaaS titles must be multiplatform to drive populations to stay forever, and that runs contradictory to why platforms make games exclusive to their own hardware.

2. Technological advancements have slowed dramatically and the cost point has risen exponentially. The rate of change from graphics generation to generation is less, and the cost point higher. Once again, see point 1 as to why a developer won't target the highest end spec, the largest population of gamers are playing games that are 10 years or older. I don't want to get into the fact that the latest generation of gamers are completely happy playing with block based characters.

3. MS lost the war against Sony in the XBO era. In particular they lost during a time in which digital lock in became a thing for consoles. Digital lock-in is so powerful that steam will likely be the undisputed digital platform for games, forever on PC, look at the billions spent by Epic to try to penetrate into that market. No luck. So once the winners are declared what should the losers do, I'm sure if the answer was so simple, they would love to hear from you.

4. Everything costs a hell of a lot more to make and produce, and that's for all industries and especially now for AAA titles. If you make AAA titles, you expect AAA returns, but what game developers are finding repeatedly is that these forever titles cost significantly less to make, and drive significantly more revenue and worse of all, they have a gravity that draws all new players as well. We lack a proper discovery mechanism in which to drive players away from forever titles to new titles as the cost point is too high versus the _free_ price point of these forever titles. The platform holders, including Sony are all struggling to reposition themselves with these changes, otherwise why would Sony fight so hard to stop Xbox from owning CoD and WoW and Overwatch? In a pair of acquisitions they are now owners of some of the largest forever franchises.

5. Referring back to point 4, what is the point of spending all this money making niche games if they can't find new gamers to play them? You cannot forever target 40 to 50 year old gamers, eventually they will stop gaming, what will you do then. The games of the today's youth are not the same games we liked to play as children. And businesses do not have the same lifespan as people. Businesses must continually adapt to changing preferences as the 'first major gaming generation' will be exiting the market, while the next generation of gamers who grew up playing on mobile devices and f2p titles are moving in. They aren't used to paying $80 per title. They are used to subscription services. They are used to playing games with user generated content. They are used to multiplatform experiences and in-game purchases. All the things that the oldest generation of gamers loathe.

***

I think I'm just touching on some major changes in the industry, but I think it's quite reductive to just say companies are causing their own troubles here. They are trying to adapt to a changing market. I think the difference between Sony and MS is that MS gave up on the older generation of gamers somewhere during the XBO era while Sony doubled down on them. Sony owns the majority of the older gamer console market today, and the 5Pro and all that is just more pandering for that audience, but I think Sony now has its sights on trying to capture the younger generation of gamers and failing just as spectacularly as everyone else is.

No platform holder today, has a strategy to dethrone F2P forever titles. Certainly Nintendo is the closest here, but they literally moved into the mobile space to do it. And among all large AAA studios who aren't in ownership of a forever title, many are failing to find the revenue to keep their business afloat. See Ubisoft for instance, their only saving grace is R6 Siege, and all their other titles are barely profitable if profitable at all.

From my POV, I don't see how you can just say these companies are causing their own mistakes, they were there back in the day making the games that people loved and riding a huge wave of success and profits. They knew how to accomplish that, and I don't think saying that they need to go back to those days will suddenly make it work for them. Because clearly that's false, as only a handful of franchises can rinse and repeat annually, while keeping their audiences satisfied. For everyone else that cannot, they are struggling to create the innovation or find the audiences to play their games.
One gripe: Halo didn’t ‘lose forever’ when CoD came on the scene, and Xbox certainly didn’t. CoD4 came out in 2007 alongside Halo 3 and both did extremely well. Halo Reach came out in 2010 and also did very well. The own goals started with 4, but that had nothing to do with CoD, it was Bungie going off and doing their own thing. Similarly, CoD entered into a pretty long period of stagnation shortly after, as most of the Xbone/PS4 era CoDs were not well received (starting with Ghosts and continuing throughout the ‘jet pack era’). They didn’t really come back into vogue until MW2019 at the tail end of the generation. Warzone would come out at this point, and that’s when they went battle royal (although obviously there’s still the traditional multiplayer too). This wasn’t their first BR mode btw, that would be Blackout in BO4, but the fact we all forgot about that is a testimony to how forgettable that era is (with a notable exception in BO3, which many consider to have the best zombies, and is one of the most popular entries on PC to this day partially due to zombies workshop map support).

But that doesn’t matter, as Xbox 360 was the best place to play the CoD4-MW3 era anyways. MS wins either way, and now they own CoD anyways.

Agreed on the Xbone generation though, ironically Phil Spencer was right when he said that losing that gen essentially made them lose forever due to digital libraries (or just libraries in general, it’s not like disks are cross platform). However I do think it’s a bit pessimistic, people probably aren’t going to care about their PS4 games (most of them at least) by the time PS6/xbox whatever comes out, so this lock in isn’t forever. It does mean however people are reluctant to switch unless there is a huge reason to.
 
Agreed on the Xbone generation though, ironically Phil Spencer was right when he said that losing that gen essentially made them lose forever due to digital libraries (or just libraries in general, it’s not like disks are cross platform). However I do think it’s a bit pessimistic, people probably aren’t going to care about their PS4 games (most of them at least) by the time PS6/xbox whatever comes out, so this lock in isn’t forever. It does mean however people are reluctant to switch unless there is a huge reason to.
But they will care about their PS5 libraries, though. The problem Xbox is going to have is that they have to deal with the accumulated library every generation from now on.
 
Back
Top