Future of MS Exclusives? (Win10 & Xbox One...things)

[eastmen]

I think your being to much of a chicken little.

Yes micron drops are slowing. But did you know the Geforce gtx 680 was the first Nvidia card on 28nm. The jump from the 680 to the 980ti is nothing short of amazing. You'd go from 35fps in battlefield to 78 at 1440p . Its the same generation micron node.

So for instance MS would be able to release a console next year taking advantage of 14nm and then a year or two down the line release a gpu for it that takes advantage of a new design giving much better performance.

Or MS can put out a Zen plus GCN and sell it as a system. But oh you want xbox vr ? Well here is a second GCN to keep performance the same in all games with the vr helmet

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10133/amd-xconnect-external-radeons

View attachment 1202



Or hey ... Want that awesome surface pro but also want to game. Here you go

View attachment 1203


The trick would be the price premium. I would imagine MS wouldn't want you to be able to upgrade the xbox except with a specific card.

But the tech is there. Heck if the casing sans graphics card was a $100 I would buy it if I had a laptop or tablet it worked with. I would then put my old card in there when my main rig got updated

So now we have the radeon rx 480 that is $200 or $230 (?) for the 4/8 gig. Its 5.5tflops of power uses less than a 150w.

We have the current rumor of a xbox one scorpio launching next year at 6tflops or greater. I can still see them creating an enclosure above using a radeon rx 480 and using it for vr modes where each gpu renders an eye.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Wasn't sure which of the generally awful and toxic exclusivity threads to post this in, but here seems good as it may be an indication of less Xbox platform exclusives going forward. Although it's hard to tell. Even Phil Spencer concedes it's "It's not the best PR answer".

Xbox Exec Doesn't Like Exclusive DLC, Also Recognizes The Irony In Saying That [GameSpot]

More interestingly, TIL there is a game show in South America and more interestingly, Xbox's big cheese attended. As did Activision.

 

[chris1515]

Wasn't sure which of the generally awful and toxic exclusivity threads to post this in, but here seems good as it may be an indication of less Xbox platform exclusives going forward. Although it's hard to tell. Even Phil Spencer concedes it's "It's not the best PR answer".

Xbox Exec Doesn't Like Exclusive DLC, Also Recognizes The Irony In Saying That [GameSpot]

More interestingly, TIL there is a game show in South America and more interestingly, Xbox's big cheese attended. As did Activision.

Sony attended too and Kojima was there too. If I remember well the first exclusive DLC was GTA 4 last gen by Microsoft. Now they are in the other position and they don't like it...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gtaiv-dlc-exclusive-for-14-months

EDIT: Having DLC exclusive content on Xbox is very expensive the gap between installed base of PS4 and Xbox One is too big...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sony attended too and Kojima was there too. If I remember well the first exclusive DLC was GTA 4 last gen by Microsoft. Now they are in the other position and they don't like it...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gtaiv-dlc-exclusive-for-14-months

EDIT: Having DLC exclusive content on Xbox is very expensive the gap between installed base of PS4 and Xbox One is too big...

Phil Spencer wasn't the head of Xbox back then. So it's entirely possible (or just PR fluff) that he's never liked exclusive DLC even if the previous Xbox head was in favor of exclusive DLC. Then again the previous head of Xbox was also hugely in favor of the F2P model, which again isn't something that Phil Spencer wants.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

Wasn't sure which of the generally awful and toxic exclusivity threads to post this in, but here seems good as it may be an indication of less Xbox platform exclusives going forward. Although it's hard to tell. Even Phil Spencer concedes it's "It's not the best PR answer".

Xbox Exec Doesn't Like Exclusive DLC, Also Recognizes The Irony In Saying That [GameSpot]

More interestingly, TIL there is a game show in South America and more interestingly, Xbox's big cheese attended. As did Activision.

I'd be pretty happy if they started porting some of their games to Switch as part of their edit(better together initiative) .
Not all games would be able to of course, but there are some games that will fit the description better than others.
ie Cuphead, and Ori.

Nintendo could probably benefit by placing some of their multiplayer based games onto the Xbox platform and grow the user base.
I'd like to see such collaboration in the future.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'd like to see such collaboration in the future.

That's the some cool shit you're smoking.

 

[mpg1]

Games like Cuphead and Ori are sort of tailor made for something like the Switch....would probably sell well...not sure if Microsoft would want to let those exclusives go but I wonder if they view Nintendo in a different light than Sony. Don't see it being through Play Anywhere program though...Play Anywhere exists because it's under the same company.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Games like Cuphead and Ori are sort of tailor made for something like the Switch....would probably sell well...not sure if Microsoft would want to let those exclusives go but I wonder if they view Nintendo in a different light than Sony.

Then Microsoft would need to decide whether they want to be a platform agnostic software developer and publisher or a company who wants their own platforms offer games other platforms don't, which is really the incentive of 1st party and 2nd party game development. If they want to sell games on other platforms made by other developers (Cuphead, Ori etc) then the easier route is just to invest in those developers so those games can be made.

Sony and Nintendo are both rivals to Microsoft in game's hardware and software. The only difference is that Sony is a bigger rival than Nintendo. Currently, at least.

 

[iroboto]

Games like Cuphead and Ori are sort of tailor made for something like the Switch....would probably sell well...not sure if Microsoft would want to let those exclusives go but I wonder if they view Nintendo in a different light than Sony. Don't see it being through Play Anywhere program though...Play Anywhere exists because it's under the same company.

apologies, better together program haha

 

[iroboto]

Then Microsoft would need to decide whether they want to be a platform agnostic software developer and publisher or a company who wants their own platforms offer games other platforms don't, which is really the incentive of 1st party and 2nd party game development. If they want to sell games on other platforms made by other developers (Cuphead, Ori etc) then the easier route is just to invest in those developers so those games can be made.

Sony and Nintendo are both rivals to Microsoft in game's hardware and software. The only difference is that Sony is a bigger rival than Nintendo. Currently, at least.

That's one way to look at it. They did start supporting linux as well. If you never intend to get into the mobile scene, I don't see the fault of selling your wares onto the mobile scene. Ideally cross sell to some of those customers to Xbox.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's one way to look at it. They did start supporting linux as well. If you never intend to get into the mobile scene, I don't see the fault of selling your wares onto the mobile scene. Ideally cross sell to some of those customers to Xbox.

Microsoft have begrudgingly supported non-Microsoft platforms for decades. If your prospectve customers are not on your platform (Windows, Xbox, WindowsPhone) but you want them to buy your software or services then you have to go to where they are. Or in the case of services like Skype, they have to go where their customer's friends and colleagues are. However doing so further de-incentivises those other platforms users adoption/return to your platform. Sometimes you just can't win.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, what's more profitable approach in the long run? Because the two approaches are not natural bedfellows.

 

[mpg1]

It's weird though because with regards to streaming services right now it's basically an arms race to create and lock as much original exclusive content behind your service.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's weird though because with regards to streaming services right now it's basically an arms race to create and lock as much original exclusive content behind your service.

That's because the service is the platform. The O/S and device upon which is runs isn't important. But exclusive games are a means to an end - to make the platform on which the game is available more enticing than platforms where the game isn't available.

The same used to be true for productivity apps but again, now you to put productivity apps on the platforms you're customers chose to use, not just the platforms that you want them to use.

 

[iroboto]

Microsoft have begrudgingly supported non-Microsoft platforms for decades. If your prospectve customers are not on your platform (Windows, Xbox, WindowsPhone) but you want them to buy your software or services then you have to go to where they are. Or in the case of services like Skype, they have to go where their customer's friends and colleagues are. However doing so further de-incentivises those other platforms users adoption/return to your platform. Sometimes you just can't win.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, what's more profitable approach in the long run? Because the two approaches are not natural bedfellows.

I think trying to control the market in this new day of age is too hard. Too many things change too fast, and things are only going to change faster.

It's almost desirable at this point to collaborate, and effectively reduce your potential maximum revenue, but keep yourself in the game for a significantly longer period of time.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's almost desirable at this point to collaborate, and effectively reduce your potential maximum revenue, but keep yourself in the game for a significantly longer period of time.

Then why do Microsoft need Xbox at all? If the goal is to reach as many potential customers as possible, walk away from hardware and sell your games to as many platforms as is commercially viable, just like Activision, EA, Ubisoft and everybody else.

 

[iroboto]

Then why do Microsoft need Xbox at all? If the goal is to reach as many potential customers as possible, walk away from hardware and sell your games to as many platforms as is commercially viable, just like Activision, EA, Ubisoft and everybody else.

They still want a device in the living room. You need something to move the baseline forward. The market still exists, and you want it to work a certain way. Nintendo and Sony aren't willing to make or provide the services that MS wants to provide, so they need to make it themselves so that they can generate their revenue as well.

And lastly, MS when concerning Xbox, is about the platform. As a publisher, they don't make nearly as much profit as they do off subscriptions and licensing off the platform.

 

[mpg1]

That's because the service is the platform. The O/S and device upon which is runs isn't important. But exclusive games are a means to an end - to make the platform on which the game is available more enticing than platforms where the game isn't available.

The same used to be true for productivity apps but again, now you to put productivity apps on the platforms you're customers chose to use, not just the platforms that you want them to use.

Yeah when it comes to video games.... in a lot of cases the game is the service. Hence the term Games as a Service (GAAS)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They still want a device in the living room. You need something to move the baseline forward. The market still exists, and you want it to work a certain way. Nintendo and Sony aren't willing to make or provide the services that MS wants to provide, so they need to make it themselves so that they can generate their revenue as well.

The device is a means to an end - an interface to the services and store, i.e. the ecosystem.

And this is the reason why you don't pay premium for exclusive content them put it into competing ecosystems because it reduces the appeal of yours if people can consume it another way - at least in a limited market like videogames, this generally doesn't work for mass markets like music or media. Ecosystems predicated on consumer lock-in and not particularly consumer friendly but they are sustainable, therefore profitable.

And lastly, MS when concerning Xbox, is about the platform. As a publisher, they don't make nearly as much profit as they do off subscriptions and licensing off the platform.

Can you cite numbers? Not because I don't believe you but because I've never seen any numbers broken from any credible source. But again, Live subs are about the ecosystem. The more people in that multiplayer ecosystem, the more appealing it is.

 

[iroboto]

The device is a means to an end - an interface to the services and store, i.e. the ecosystem.

And this is the reason why you don't pay premium for exclusive content them put it into competing ecosystems because it reduces the appeal of yours if people can consume it another way - at least in a limited market like videogames, this generally doesn't work for mass markets like music or media. Ecosystems predicated on consumer lock-in and not particularly consumer friendly but they are sustainable, therefore profitable.



Can you cite numbers? Not because I don't believe you but because I've never seen any numbers broken from any credible source. But again, Live subs are about the ecosystem. The more people in that multiplayer ecosystem, the more appealing it is.

I can't cite real numbers no. I may have written that incorrectly so it's a pretty stupid comment I make. MS wants the money both from licensing and subscriptions, combined, the platform will certainly will generate more money than their first party software sales; which is what EA and Activision do.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

MS wants the money both from licensing and subscriptions, combined, the platform will certainly will generate more money than their first party software sales; which is what EA and Activision do.

That's exactly what Microsoft but this revenue comes from people being inside their ecosystem in the first place, paing subs and and buying games for which Microsoft get their retailer cut. For that to happen you have to make that ecosystem appeal by first getting people inside the virtual door. You can do that by being better than the competition or with exclusives where customers have to come to you.

If the aim is to make your ecosystem appeal more, why would allow your exclusive content to be accessible elsewhere? As this point you're basically a Multiplatform publisher with less experience than everybody else. This undermines the reason of taking the financial risk with it in the first place. BTW Activision, EA and Ubisoft are also publishers for third party developers so they have a similar relationship with third party developers as Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.