RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I would take the lack of a large release schdule of games for the 360 as an indication that those titles are probably being held for next gen which points to a release sooner than later.
Microsoft's content platform and business strategy
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
I seriously doubt the 720 is comming in 2013. It'll get revealed to help build massive hype for 2014.
The 360 has so much going for it right now with lower price and the opportunity to explore kinect. Microsoft has to recall the PS2 sales numbers when the XB360 launched.
The 360 has so much going for it right now with lower price and the opportunity to explore kinect. Microsoft has to recall the PS2 sales numbers when the XB360 launched.
Let the E3 leaks begin?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/8/30...t-play-fit-joule-heart-rate-monitor-accessory
I think it would be an interesting addition to the system software. It should make it easier to quantify your Kinect activity so you can integrate it into a more comprehensive fitness program.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/8/30...t-play-fit-joule-heart-rate-monitor-accessory
I think it would be an interesting addition to the system software. It should make it easier to quantify your Kinect activity so you can integrate it into a more comprehensive fitness program.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Quite possibly, but I also don't think think MS has to do a "typical" reveal schedule oriented around things like E3.
They can just do a live one-hour event any time they want with a channel like Spike TV and get as much, if not more press than announcing anything at a "traditional" event.
So I think looking at windows of opportunity where announcements have been previously made isn't necessarily something that would be required for their next reveal.
I know I'm probably jumping the gun by saying abandoned and we'll see how it all turns out over the next 2 years, but I just have a feeling that the xbox will have a better last year than the 360 and that's kind of sad considering how fast MS was eager to kill off the last system.
It all depends if they have more than Halo 4 and Forza Horizon this gen.
It all depends if they have more than Halo 4 and Forza Horizon this gen.
Are you saying it depends on what exclusives are being offered? The system has established itself an identity that it doesn't need exclusives to be relevant. They have been proofing that this whole gen.
I don't get how you think today that The 360 could have a worse last year than what the Xbox had when we all know the Xbox was waiting money. The 360 generates money. Not sure how you even got to the idea of the possibility based on the decisions MS has made and results that have come from those decisions vs their first attempt and the mistakes they learned from the first go around.
But you did say you were probably jumping the gun on this :smile:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Yeah, I don't see the 360 being abandoned at any time in the foreseeable future.
They're going to be able to sell millions of 360s at $99 even competing with the WiiU, NextBox and PS4. They'll be competing with WD Live players and Roku boxes with the added benefit of playing a huge library of games.
Until media streamers can be made profitable at a price lower than the 360 can reach (say, $50 retail), the 360 will continue to be manufactured and sold.
They're going to be able to sell millions of 360s at $99 even competing with the WiiU, NextBox and PS4. They'll be competing with WD Live players and Roku boxes with the added benefit of playing a huge library of games.
Until media streamers can be made profitable at a price lower than the 360 can reach (say, $50 retail), the 360 will continue to be manufactured and sold.
I just look at it as them resting on their laurels, which I never approve with a company. I understand that the 360 doesn't need exclusives to be relevant, and I'm not hoping to have half a dozen exclusives spread out next year, but a few would be welcome IMO. I understand the decision to move most of the efforts towards next gen games, but I also think they should provide content to their existing userbase. It would help build brand loyalty and further benefit them next gen.
As for how the 360's last year could be worse than the xbox 1's last year, well let's assume that there won't be any exclusives coming to the 360 next year that are worth mentioning (I don't consider Star Wars Kinect a worthwhile exclusive for example). The xbox had Doom 3 (+expansion), Forza, Conker, Half life 2, and Jade Empire, all in 2005. I just don't see the 360 having such a great year in 2013.
However again, I understand that I'm jumping to conclusions all based on a comment made by Pachter. It just sounds like something MS would do because it makes business sense with little risk.
Edit:
@ Rancid, I mean abandoned in terms of game development, not production of the hardware or Live support.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know that your making a firm case by having 3 ports and 1 post-KOTOR disappointment in your "great" list.
They were all high profile console exclusives, that's more than enough to make my case. Dismissing them because of your opinion is a poor argument.
It seems just as arbitrary to define the quality of a console's annual software releases by the number of "high-profile console exclusives".
I think you're missing my point.
Following your chain of posts you believe that in order to serve their core userbase (as you define it) MS needs to provide high-profile console exclusives.
I think they should provide exclusives, it's obvious that they don't need to do anything in order to stay successful or serve their core userbase.
I don't know that many of the 360's exclusives this gen have been significantly better than the best of the multiplatform releases. In light of this, the additional expense of securing or developing exclusives doesn't seem to be worth it when the biggest benefit to the exclusivity is the exclusivity itself. As a gamer, I don't care what platforms a game is available for as long as it is available for the one(s) I own.
No quality game is significantly better than other games in it's respective genre, that doesn't mean games like Uncharted, Halo, Gears, GT5, etc. aren't welcome.
That said, I mostly agree with you. I don't necessarily care whether a game is an exclusive or a multi-platform title, they excite me the same and it irks me when people place exclusives up on some pedestal, especially when associated to their platform of choice.
I was just speaking in regards to MS' business practices, which is what this thread is all about. Their current strategy involves less risk, that's for sure, however I still think it would be great if they supported the platform they helped build with software. As I said before, I see it as a company resting on their laurels, which I never agree with. I would say the same for Nintendo, but outside of a few properties, I have grown past most of their games.
I guess in the end it just comes down to taking less risk, which makes business sense, or providing content for your userbase, which involves more risk but can also brink in additional revenue while building customer mindshare.
I see nothing wrong with thinking that companies can, and should, schedule and plan their content releases better so they can provide content throughout the entire generation, including the end.
One key metric that guides their business strategy is ROI. My sense is that they don't believe that the money they would need to spend to fund exclusive game development is going to provide enough of a ROI to justfiy that investment. Instead, there will be plenty of games coming out from 3rd parties, who I am sure are happy to not have to compete with 1st party offerings for console owners' dollars.
I am not trying to argue that more first-party games from MS in the coming year wouldn't be a good thing for 360 owners who are mainly or solely invested in the 360 as a games machine. What I am pointing out is that it doesn't make financial sense for them to do that. Criticizing companies for not making poor financial decisions for your benefit is probably unreasonable and bound to leave you frequently disappointed. Note that I contrast this with cases where companies are actively working against the interests of their customers for financial gain.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exclusives are something of a bane to gamers, when a great game you'd love to play isn't available for your platform. Ideally you'd have access to all the games. However, the theory behind the exclusive is that the devs can eek out more from the hardware, so you are getting the most from your console. A multiplatform title is only using 80% of the hardware, say, so you aren't getting your money's worth from the hardware.
Of course, with the increase in game complexity the opportunity to actually harness the full capabilities of the hardware diminish. More middleware and abstraction layers are introduced as gaming becomes a service. PSN and Live! downloads running on higher level SDKs aren't ideally efficient, but produce good games, proving 100% hardware utilisation doesn't necessarily bring much to the table. I expect in a lot of cases the perceived superiority of the platform exclusive is in good part placebo effect. With fatter software layers between software and hardware, exclusive titles aren't gaining the hardware benefit, making exclusivity purely a business decision. eg. Capitalising on Sony's Pub Fund deals. Next gen is likely to be more abstracted. There'll be room for first party titles in native code hitting the metal pretty hard from the likes of Naughty Dog, but they'll be few and far between. I expect most games to be running on a reasonably portable engine to facilitate device portability. As such, if the exclusives that benefit from being exclusive are few and far between, the difference between one platform and another is going to be the whole experience and services. If the choice is console A with a great overall experience, and console B with a mediocre experience but a few top-draw exclusives, maybe two of which you actually care for, how many would really choose B over A? The only caveat to that I think is if a console company secures a stupid nuumber of exclusives to offer a massive library advantage. eg. MS buying EA Sports exclusivity for the generation, or Sony securing all Namco and Capcom games for the generation. Which would just pee off gamers who'd need two consoles!
I don't think there's much sense in financing platform exclusives as flagship titles due to diminishing returns, and as such I think it perfectly acceptible for MS to give up on the idea. That said, Sony's investments have got them a remarkable library of experiences with their willingness to invest in more artsy titles. Fiscally, have they been worth it? Has the platform really benefited that much?
I always felt that a platform exclusive means that the dev can make a game FOR the HW and can utilize all its function for full benefit of the game. That includes things like input method, network environment and storage.
Ive mentioned this before but ballmer must go and others are agreeing, why arent the stockholders making more noise?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/6941544/Microsofts-Ballmer-worst-US-CEO-Forbes
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/6941544/Microsofts-Ballmer-worst-US-CEO-Forbes
Similar threads
- Locked
