Aaah I see, so its actually quite complicated. I'm more old school where I mainly play offline. Unfortunately when I play online I have had to set up an EA account, etc, but I strictly do not sign up if they require me to play a game mode which is offline and doesnt intrinsically require the internet to be played.
Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
Let's worry about this when law makers allow it, or worry about it when MS starts putting a forward a case in law that they should be allowed into their stores. Until then, it doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss. It's like saying something will inevitably happen, given a long enough time frame, everything will happen. There's no indication this will happen in the next 5 years, so I think for the most part you can let this one go.
What's even more laughable is some of the platform holders, mentioning no names (*cough* Sony *cough*) have a terrible backend, using the sign up account name as the Primary Key and then having to fudge name changes. Thus the game needs to query the account name which isn't necessarily the identifier. This resulted in some games not supporting account name changes. They ballsed up a college-level database setup principle and now they are saddled with it forever more. Okay, they could create a new DB and migrate their data...
I expect they will merge Xbox with PC and have a game version, basically PC games. The difference will be that you will only be able to play games and use the multimedia services on your dedicated XboxPC console as you do now. The question may legitimately arise, why would people still buy such XboxPCs when they can buy a traditional PC that is not only limited to games. The answer is, on the one hand, the pricing, that is, MS can offer these XboxPCs at a lower price like the current console model, with a minimal profit. Two or three personal configurations from the entry level or handheld to the professional high-end level hardver. Another advantage is the simple console handling of the form factor and the user interface, which is opposed to the complexity of PCs. Furthermore, there would be other great points, for example, games would run significantly faster on these consoled PCs, since the current Windows would run 100% only the game, avoiding the slowing down processes running in the background. The entire Gamepass service would be unified to this model by connecting different levels.
With this future-proof strategy, they can practically risk-free transform their traditional console stagnant model into a more successful potentially continuously expanding model.
With this future-proof strategy, they can practically risk-free transform their traditional console stagnant model into a more successful potentially continuously expanding model.
You don't necessarily need an account with a separate login for that. Just use the XBL, PSN, etc. as the login and allow people to link those similar to what Bungie does. Basically an oauth-esque flow.
I see no technical reason why each publisher should demand their own credentials to provide cross-play or basic multi-/singleplayer functionality. Only business reasons.
Okay fair enough.
We will cross that bridge when it gets there. Believe me, I don’t have an issue supporting you if MS starts trying to do that. For now let’s just wait until that happens.
Maybe. but it would simplify things on their end with an account system designed for people without XBL/PSN, and then using that system to connect with those accounts.
raytracingfan
Newcomer
Many of the most popular websites and mobile apps use the OAuth or OpenID protocols to allow users to login with their existing Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, etc. accounts instead of creating their own account specifically for that site/app. Steam accounts also support this, and PSN accounts have a method for third-party apps to allow login too (not sure if it's OAuth or OpenID or some proprietary mechanism). There's already games sold through Steam that don't force the player to make a new account and instead let the user pick between using their Steam account or an Xbox or PSN account to enable cross-progression with console (or Xbox Store on PC). I don't know if the opposite - logging into a console game with Steam - is permitted, but if there is a barrier that would be due to platform holder policy, not a technical hurdle.
arandomguy
Veteran
I don't think we can really separate the technical from the I guess "legal/business(?)" side of things here. The reality is users are worth money and platform lock-in holds value. Allowing login authentication with third parties is also very different from integration of products and services both from a business stand point and technical stand point.
The other thing to keep in mind here is that 1 to 1 relations are much easier to implement both technically and business wise, but once you have more parties removed it does start getting more complicated on each step. What I mean is if say MS wants to negotiate and implement something in conjunction with EA that's relatively simple. But if you need MS, Sony, Valve, Epic, GoG, and etc. to be able to integrate with EA both ways, which would mean all the platform parties need to also integrate with each other. Then you add in more content holders and it becomes this very messy web of negotiation.
The other thing to keep in mind here is that 1 to 1 relations are much easier to implement both technically and business wise, but once you have more parties removed it does start getting more complicated on each step. What I mean is if say MS wants to negotiate and implement something in conjunction with EA that's relatively simple. But if you need MS, Sony, Valve, Epic, GoG, and etc. to be able to integrate with EA both ways, which would mean all the platform parties need to also integrate with each other. Then you add in more content holders and it becomes this very messy web of negotiation.
Cappuccino
Newcomer
But they can’t, all consoles lose money in the beginning and are maybe making a profit per unit at the end of the cycle, in MS’ case I don’t think they’re making a profit at all per unit. The profit is deferred and from sales within the ecosystem. If this is just a semi-custom PC, there is no ecosystem, therefore no business model.
They would have to raise prices, which seems like a losing strategy considering people don’t want these consoles (as in, Xboxes specifically) at their current prices, nevermind higher!
Not true, PS4 and PS5 were profitable within 8 months of release.
That used to be the model. Having found they can shift hardware with actual profit margins, the console companies don't want to run loss-leaders any more. This does mean any competitor could choose to compete in the market with cheaper hardware by loss-leading, but if you don't have after-sales software licensing fees from a closed ecosystem, you'd just be throwing money away.
Let's imagine $100 loss average across the generation by pricing expensive hardware aggressively. 120 million units sold would be $12 billion lost. Now imagine no losses but you only sell 80 million as a result. That's $12 billion more cash in the bank. You'd need the increased population to be proportionally more profitable to offset the costs, and yet the lowest-price sensitive customers are the poorest cash generators. Ultimately, the people who can and will spend large on hardware are more likely to spend large on ongoing content and services. The widest reach consumers are low-value from a business sense, and even negative value. Something like a $100 PS2 with a $15 margin is worth it even if it's only ever used for second-hand game because it has that margin. A $300 console with a $30 loss won't be.
At the end of the day, Sony in particular has the data on four generations of sales, margins, costs and profits, and so theirs is a very informed position where they are choosing not to sell low with loss leading. them and every other company like Apple and Nintendo also pricing with positive hardware margins. Seems unlikely they are all wrong and the common-man theory of 'lower prices == more users == better' is correct.
At the end of the day, Sony in particular has the data on four generations of sales, margins, costs and profits, and so theirs is a very informed position where they are choosing not to sell low with loss leading. them and every other company like Apple and Nintendo also pricing with positive hardware margins. Seems unlikely they are all wrong and the common-man theory of 'lower prices == more users == better' is correct.
raytracingfan
Newcomer
This just isn't true. Modern consoles also have background processes, and regular Windows already prioritizes games over background processes. The console advantage comes from having APIs that fit the hardware better and developers optimizing for a single platform using those APIs. A game made with regular PC DirectX intended to run on any PC won't run significantly better on an "Xbox PC" than a regular PC with equivalent specs and no bloatware.
Cappuccino
Newcomer
Becoming profitable within 8 months implies they, in fact, started off taking a loss per unit at the start, which is what I said.
Im also mostly talking about Xbox. They almost certainly aren’t making a profit per unit.
Cappuccino
Newcomer
Yes, but MS hasn’t been able to do this and I don’t think they’d be able to with how unpopular their consoles are.
There’s virtually no profit in console hardware. Sony is the long standing leader in revenue and their margins after their take from games sold on their platform is still just 5-7%.
It’s really dismal.
The hardware is the most irrelevant thing of being a platform if all the money being made is on the software side of things.
MS only needs to release enough consoles to satiate the market that wants it, but it is no longer their core focus. Unfortunately that drives the cost of the console up for them, but they pay significantly less in COA if players are bringing their own hardware to the Xbox platform.
It’s really dismal.
The hardware is the most irrelevant thing of being a platform if all the money being made is on the software side of things.
MS only needs to release enough consoles to satiate the market that wants it, but it is no longer their core focus. Unfortunately that drives the cost of the console up for them, but they pay significantly less in COA if players are bringing their own hardware to the Xbox platform.
Is MS sell hardware at a loss, they'll just wipe out their profits. What's the point?
But Nintendo are the undisputed kings of profit and they make money on hardware.
Similar threads
