Please quote/screenshot tweets. In this case, it's been deleted?
Which IPs are coming to PS though? Seems the third-party ones (before MS bought them) rather than XB's exclusives like Halo and Forza. Which makes sense as the ABK type titles were created around a market share that included tens of millions of PlayStations, so that's part of the business model and ABK making money. Removing those devices from those games audiences means hampering the earning potential of ABK and making it turn less money than before MS bought it, which probably isn't a great sell to the investors. "Yeah, we bought this huge publishers for crazy money making x millions a year, but now they make 15% less because we won't release their games on PS." I expect the investor response to be something along the lines of, "why the bloody hell not?!" Which leads to "um, yeah why not? Let's sell to PS and make more money."It's funny because they were rejoicing that MS stole all these franchises to make them exclusive and now even their own games may be hitting PS
it seems so, a wake-up call from someone at MS in the upper management, it seems. It was from Mat Piscatella. He tweeted this, more or less, iirc:Please quote/screenshot tweets. In this case, it's been deleted?
Buying up studios for a console that isn't selling isn't the smartest of plays. This makes logical sense.
They want games to be a service and the underlying hardware can be anything.
Fair enough. As long these studios continue to exist.I wonder if some of the shifting in strategy relates to certain development studios within Microsoft wanting to have broader access to more platforms to meet sales expectations, and warding off any potential layoffs or closures due to poor game unit sales.
I could see Ninja Theory, Zen/Bethesda, and other studios wanting the same level of access to capture more gamers (sells) as ABK has with COD on PlayStation, on making sure their games are successful. A level playing field internally, you might say.
Has nothing to do with the situation
my bad. I found it quite suspicious that the date was february 4th but still....Has nothing to do with the situation
imho, it's only doom and gloom for Phil Spencer, who I think is going to step down. He is much better than Mattrick, but he did anything significant enough for the Xbox to change course, other than being polite and making PR statements on other companies and stuff. He is okay though, I am not saying otherwise, but people like him o the retired Major Nelson aren't going to attract new people to a brand, in fact it's the opposite. MS has been smart enough to retire Major Nelson but anyways.I don't see this as a "Doom" and "Gloom" scenario of Microsoft phasing out the XB hardware line, quite the opposite. I see them restructuring more of their efforts to support all platforms, and yet, providing more cheaper all-digital box solutions (such as S) and potentially mobile XB offerings.
At the very minimum, I don't see Microsoft exiting the console manufacturing space anytime soon, or another attempt at the next-generation.
Gears of War is also on the cards apparently.Which IPs are coming to PS though? Seems the third-party ones (before MS bought them) rather than XB's exclusives like Halo and Forza. Which makes sense as the ABK type titles were created around a market share that included tens of millions of PlayStations, so that's part of the business model and ABK making money. Removing those devices from those games audiences means hampering the earning potential of ABK and making it turn less money than before MS bought it, which probably isn't a great sell to the investors. "Yeah, we bought this huge publishers for crazy money making x millions a year, but now they make 15% less because we won't release their games on PS." I expect the investor response to be something along the lines of, "why the bloody hell not?!" Which leads to "um, yeah why not? Let's sell to PS and make more money."
The only reason not to is to use massive exclusive power at considerable cost to try to push gamers onto Xbox, which at $70 billion would likely be more expensive and less effective than subsidising every Xbox to sell at $100!