What makes you think Valve wants to compete with the Switch 2? They seem perfectly content making low volume handhelds for people that are already in the Steam ecosystem.
Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
Charlietus
Regular
And I think that's a mistake. In this generation almost everything that could have gone wrong for consoles has gone wrong (covid - semiconductor shortages - Sony going all in on GAAS - Microsoft buying Activision and having to become a third party publisher, inflation), and most of all, Sony not making a console like the series s, with the price of the PS5 being the biggest bottleneck for sales.
If I was Valve, it would be the moment to strike at Sony and Microsoft, but they seem content on selling a couple millions of decks. And next gen Sony isn't going to make the same mistakes, with the biggest competitor being valve instead of Microsoft.
Maybe. I know Steam Deck have captured the hearts and minds of gamers, but, and I know we don't have hard numbers, aren't Deck sales really low when compared to most consoles. I think there was a report about a year ago that Valve had sold 2 million Decks, so we'd be in the 3-4 million range now, if we extrapolate that data. Someone invoked the 3DO earlier in this thread, and I think they had a 2-3 million unit install base as well. WiiU sold 9ish million, PS5 ships 3-4 million per quarter, for comparisons.
Steam Deck can both be a success for valve and still not have a substantial impact on the console market. And it's the same with SteamOS. PC manufacturers have shipped PCs with alternative OS in the past, often even at a discount, and Windows still won out. That doesn't mean SteamOS is a failure for Valve, but it also doesn't mean that it would be big competition for Windows in the PC gaming space.
Charlietus
Regular
Mainstream publicity and distribution in stores would probably get them to at least double their numbers. Which would still be really low, but would be a point to start expanding. And that would be competition, even without big numbers.
I am currently watching Attack on Titan. You don't have to spoil stuff for yourself.
Double what they have now is still way less than WiiU. That doesn't mean Valve can't make a successful hardware business. Apple has certainly done that with their roughly 15% market share with MacOS, and Google has as well with it's >2% market share with ChromeOS. Source for those numbers.
I just think it's silly for the for there to be discourse about how Windows is going to be forced out of the gaming space when SteamOS gets released on more devices. That could happen, of course, but current sales data doesn't indicate that it's anywhere close to be a sure thing. In fact, the data more suggests that SteamOS isn't really going to affect Windows market share. Before checking, I would have assumed ChromeOS was more popular, but macOS has 7x the market share and Linux has double. And you can walk into a Walmart and walk out with a Chromebook, usually for less than the cheapest Windows laptop they sell. But my Walmart doesn't carry any PCs preinstalled with Linux or MacOS. They lack of retail presence hasn't prevented those OS from having much higher market share than ChromeOS.
Microsoft is doing what will benefit their users the most, which is to sell games where they can to sell more games and fund better games.
yup, there is only Office left.
Microsoft could soon bring three staple Xbox titles over to PS5
Microsoft is continuing its push to bring Xbox titles to more platforms and is now reportedly considering Halo, Gears of War, and Flight Simulator for PS5.
www.tweaktown.com
They're going to make some decent moneyMicrosoft could soon bring three staple Xbox titles over to PS5
Microsoft is continuing its push to bring Xbox titles to more platforms and is now reportedly considering Halo, Gears of War, and Flight Simulator for PS5.
The deck is not available in all regions, at least not where I live (Norway, when you use the steamdeck.com site. So yes expansion will probably increase sales, but I doubt by much.
If you go to a Norwegian electronic consumer goods store, ie they have imported it somehow, 1TB Steamdeck is marginally higher in price than the PS5 Pro here in Norway, about 50 usd.
Personally I do not think that Valve really care very much about the sales numbers, most important thing is that MS does not cut steam of from Windows. Ie if MS tries something like that, they can fall back on SteamOS, its the carrot & stick options for MS.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Maybe MS brings Steam to Xbox and gets 30% of the 30% of Steam sales. 
It would be pretty cool to play some PC games on Xbox that weren't released for Xbox. Like .... Lord of the Rings Online, for instance. LOL
Btw, I believe that the reason the new Xbox might be called Xbox Prime is that it's because it is the Primal base next gen configuration. The official base model. Maybe $399 or something, though I'm hoping $599.
I still believe they can launch whenever the hardware stars align. They have the teams to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Purpose of a new Xbox: GP delivery mechanism. The ideal Xbox for MS is one that causes existing GP users to buy it and stay with GP and maybe attract some new ones. They don't need to swing for the 100 million userbase fences like Sony does.
A GP subscriber Xbox owner is probably worth $200 per year for MS. So $1400 over 7 years. Sony has to sell 20 games to make that up for a PS user. Attach rates just aren't that high. My guess is that a GP subscribing Xbox owner is worth twice as much to MS as a PS user is to Sony. Thus, Sony has to sell twice as many units as MS for similar success. On top of that, as long as they make good games MS earns even more money by publishing everything on PC, PS, and Switch.
The Xbox Prime Directive: Be attractive enough to keep GP subscribing Xbox users in the ecosystem. Rake in the sub money and then make all the PS and Switch owners fund everything with 3rd party releases.
Btw, Phil isn't as dumb as you think he is.
Journalist: "Phil, everyone is playing free black hole games like Fortnite on their Xbox and not buying new AAA games"
Phil: "Do they have GP subscriptions?"
Journalist: "A third of them do"
Phil: "What's the problem then?"
It would be pretty cool to play some PC games on Xbox that weren't released for Xbox. Like .... Lord of the Rings Online, for instance. LOL
Btw, I believe that the reason the new Xbox might be called Xbox Prime is that it's because it is the Primal base next gen configuration. The official base model. Maybe $399 or something, though I'm hoping $599.
I still believe they can launch whenever the hardware stars align. They have the teams to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Purpose of a new Xbox: GP delivery mechanism. The ideal Xbox for MS is one that causes existing GP users to buy it and stay with GP and maybe attract some new ones. They don't need to swing for the 100 million userbase fences like Sony does.
A GP subscriber Xbox owner is probably worth $200 per year for MS. So $1400 over 7 years. Sony has to sell 20 games to make that up for a PS user. Attach rates just aren't that high. My guess is that a GP subscribing Xbox owner is worth twice as much to MS as a PS user is to Sony. Thus, Sony has to sell twice as many units as MS for similar success. On top of that, as long as they make good games MS earns even more money by publishing everything on PC, PS, and Switch.
The Xbox Prime Directive: Be attractive enough to keep GP subscribing Xbox users in the ecosystem. Rake in the sub money and then make all the PS and Switch owners fund everything with 3rd party releases.
Btw, Phil isn't as dumb as you think he is.
Journalist: "Phil, everyone is playing free black hole games like Fortnite on their Xbox and not buying new AAA games"
Phil: "Do they have GP subscriptions?"
Journalist: "A third of them do"
Phil: "What's the problem then?"
Last edited:
This would actually be a good idea as a niche device. My only concern would be software compatibility issues with games from the steam store and cannibalizing Xbox Game Store sales if they had the Steam store as well. Otherwise there are a lot of valid points you bring up.Maybe MS brings Steam to Xbox and gets 30% of the 30% of Steam sales.
It would be pretty cool to play some PC games on Xbox that weren't released for Xbox. Like .... Lord of the Rings Online, for instance. LOL
Btw, I believe that the reason the new Xbox might be called Xbox Prime is that it's because it is the Primal base next gen configuration. The official base model. Maybe $399 or something, though I'm hoping $599.
I still believe they can launch whenever the hardware stars align. They have the teams to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Purpose of a new Xbox: GP delivery mechanism. The ideal Xbox for MS is one that causes existing GP users to buy it and stay with GP and maybe attract some new ones. They don't need to swing for the 100 million userbase fences like Sony does.
A GP subscriber Xbox owner is probably worth $200 per year for MS. So $1400 over 7 years. Sony has to sell 20 games to make that up for a PS user. Attach rates just aren't that high. My guess is that a GP subscribing Xbox owner is worth twice as much to MS as a PS user is to Sony. Thus, Sony has to sell twice as many units as MS for similar success. On top of that, as long as they make good games MS earns even more money by publishing everything on PC, PS, and Switch.
The Xbox Prime Directive: Be attractive enough to keep GP subscribing Xbox users in the ecosystem. Rake in the sub money and then make all the PS and Switch owners fund everything with 3rd party releases.
Btw, Phil isn't as dumb as you think he is.
Journalist: "Phil, everyone is playing free black hole games like Fortnite on their Xbox and not buying new AAA games"
Phil: "Do they have GP subscriptions?"
Journalist: "A third of them do"
Phil: "What's the problem then?"
Is that reflected in the financials? I don't think we can tell from MS's most recent financials as we only got relative figures and revenue. I guess the aspect your numbers are missing are costs. If MS makes $200 a year in subs and spends $180 to do that, they are making less than one Sony game sale. If they only spend $5 a year to run the service, they are quids in.
The best subscription is the one that costs you nothing! MS learning from the 'haven't got around to cancelling my gym membership I never use' model.
Although do people think him dumb? I thought the argument is more 'not aligned with their XBox interests'. People anti-Phil Spencer are, I think, against the direction XB is headed rather than fearing it's unhealthy business.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Fair enough, but I don't think recent development/marketing costs leaked from Sony suggest they are somehow running a low cost operation. It's true that revenue only tells half the story though.
Plenty of people around here think Phil is making bad business decisions. I'm just offering the other side of the story.
PlayStation's profits are terrible! Nintendo outclass everyone.
Charlietus
Regular
This isn't true.
9-Month Profits in 2024 :
PlayStation - $2.03 billion
Nintendo - $1.22 billion
EA - $984 million
Konami - $475 million
Bandai Namco - $273 million
Capcom - $199 million
Ubisoft - -$89 million loss)
Profits in the last quarter :
PlayStation - $908 million
Nintendo - $440 million
EA - $384 million
Konami - $149 million
Bandai Namco - $96 million
Capcom - $51 million
Ubisoft - -$294 million (loss)
Even with all the terrible decisions, they are comfortably profitable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Sony's operating profits a small fraction of their revenue? Versus Nintendo who's return on its revenue is a much higher proportion.
Found something:
Edit: aligned graphs:
Found something:
Edit: aligned graphs:
Charlietus
Regular
In 2024 they "solved" the operating profits problem, and that's missing in that chart.
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2024/11/playstation-has-swiftly-solved-its-profitability-problem
A 184% increase on 6% margins makes that around 11%.
Edit: More accurately 13% from their financials, $138.8M operating income on $1071.5M revenue.
Well below Sony's best and well, well below Nintendo's average.
For MS to beat Sony at the gaming business in terms of profitability, they'd need to make $140M profits for the quarter. Best case scenario, maybe they could achieve that with just $160M revenue mostly from subs and crazy low overheads.
Basically, revenue isn't a great measure for company performance, but sadly that's all we have for MS!
Similar threads
