Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy

[QPlayer]

According to the new system: All first-party MS games developed for the Xbox Series will receive approximately one year of console exclusivity, and the PC versions will only come later.


The advantages of this system compared to previous multiplatform game developments:

1, The value of the console increases in the eyes of the customer market, similar to Nintendo's exclusive system. Since a significant amount of quality games are available only on Xbox consoles, gamers feel more motivated to buy the console and thus the number of Xboxes sold increases.

2, The time allocated for game development can be significantly reduced, since game development only needs to be done for two closed systems in the first round. Thanks to this, games can be released months or even half a year earlier.

3, Since the games are technologically adapted to the consoles, you can use the specific hardware options of the Series consoles to a greater extent and adapt the games to them, such as full DX12, SFS memory management and other features. Furthermore, and more importantly, the games can be more optimized and tested when they are released on the console, since developers only have to focus on these two hardware.

4, The PC versions are also a benefit thanks to the extra one-year development framework, as this gives more time for optimizations here and especially for bug fixes.

All in all, everyone is doing well. Compared to the current chaotic situation in the gaming industry, everyone would be better off with this system, and not incidentally, MS can boost sales of Xbox consoles and Gamepass subscriptions with this significantly increased console base.

 

[iroboto]

They are trying to get out of the console space, and they are currently doing the right steps to remove themselves with needing to sell hardware.

logistics for large scale hardware isn’t their strength and they have major issues selling hardware everywhere. Whereas their data Center strategy is quite global and it is much easier to move their base to PC and cloud gaming.

 

[Nisaaru]

They are trying to get out of the console space, and they are currently doing the right steps to remove themselves with needing to sell hardware.

logistics for large scale hardware isn’t their strength and they have major issues selling hardware everywhere. Whereas their data Center strategy is quite global and it is much easier to move their base to PC and cloud gaming.

And here I actually think the PC game market has no real future because of the agenda of the Western governments to budget people's personal resources.

How can 1000+Watt PCs continue to be economical for the masses and why should NV+co continue developing such GPUs?

I'm sure their server designs will sell like *hot* cakes to run all the AI they need to manage this global prison farm system.

Just look how China and South Korea are already limiting gaming time for people for mostly social reason I suppose.

It won't end there.

 

[Nesh]

And here I actually think the PC game market has no real future because of the agenda of the Western governments to budget people's personal resources.

How can 1000+Watt PCs continue to be economical for the masses and why should NV+co continue developing such GPUs?

I'm sure their server designs will sell like *hot* cakes to run all the AI they need to manage this global prison farm system.

Just look how China and South Korea are already limiting gaming time for people for mostly social reason I suppose.

It won't end there.

Did you see any government announcement or plan that tries to regulate PC energy consumption and how?

To me this agenda scenario you are referring to is a very huge assumption and I dont see how you are making the connections.
Governments care about the economy flowing in terms of trasnsactions, otherwise there will be stagnation. They don't want that.
You brought different subjects that are unrelated to this assumed agenda.

China and South Korea aren't trying to budget resources. They arent trying to reduce spending. They are trying to limit time spent because they observed a huge pandemic of video game addiction (and if you ask me there is a worse pandemic on social media addiction that needs to be regulated). This is not a target on PC. It is related to video games in general. People might spend less time gaming, but they could be gaming on a super expensive high end PC rig.

Then you mention energy required to run expensive PCs. Just as every product there is a range from low tier to high tier hardware. People can be gaming on any of these.
I ve seen nothing from governments trying to budget people's personal resources in electronics. Most TVs energy efficiency is not optimal either. They are almost never in the A or B energy class consumption.

In terms of spending Consoles are also becoming very expensive to operate. Gaming on consoles often accumulate to more overall spending than on PC.

If anything will be disruptive it will come from the business interests themselves, as they are the ones running the show, openly in the market that we see and behind closed doors with the governments where we don't see.

If they want to control you through an AI global prison farm system, it will have nothing to do with budgeting your resources, but rather making you fully dependent. If a super expensive PC can serve that, it will be part of that. Social media for example are using advanced AI systems to manipulate public thought and people are spending hugely on tiny overpriced devices that facilitate this. We spend hours and a lot of money on social media and enterteinment like Netflix which are HUGE industries and thats part of a prison itself.

 

[mr magoo]

According to the new system: All first-party MS games developed for the Xbox Series will receive approximately one year of console exclusivity, and the PC versions will only come later.


The advantages of this system compared to previous multiplatform game developments:

1, The value of the console increases in the eyes of the customer market, similar to Nintendo's exclusive system. Since a significant amount of quality games are available only on Xbox consoles, gamers feel more motivated to buy the console and thus the number of Xboxes sold increases.

2, The time allocated for game development can be significantly reduced, since game development only needs to be done for two closed systems in the first round. Thanks to this, games can be released months or even half a year earlier.

3, Since the games are technologically adapted to the consoles, you can use the specific hardware options of the Series consoles to a greater extent and adapt the games to them, such as full DX12, SFS memory management and other features. Furthermore, and more importantly, the games can be more optimized and tested when they are released on the console, since developers only have to focus on these two hardware.

4, The PC versions are also a benefit thanks to the extra one-year development framework, as this gives more time for optimizations here and especially for bug fixes.

All in all, everyone is doing well. Compared to the current chaotic situation in the gaming industry, everyone would be better off with this system, and not incidentally, MS can boost sales of Xbox consoles and Gamepass subscriptions with this significantly increased console base.

Where this is coming from? I think it sounds reasonable but any source to this ?

 

[Remij]

According to the new system: All first-party MS games developed for the Xbox Series will receive approximately one year of console exclusivity, and the PC versions will only come later.


The advantages of this system compared to previous multiplatform game developments:

1, The value of the console increases in the eyes of the customer market, similar to Nintendo's exclusive system. Since a significant amount of quality games are available only on Xbox consoles, gamers feel more motivated to buy the console and thus the number of Xboxes sold increases.

2, The time allocated for game development can be significantly reduced, since game development only needs to be done for two closed systems in the first round. Thanks to this, games can be released months or even half a year earlier.

3, Since the games are technologically adapted to the consoles, you can use the specific hardware options of the Series consoles to a greater extent and adapt the games to them, such as full DX12, SFS memory management and other features. Furthermore, and more importantly, the games can be more optimized and tested when they are released on the console, since developers only have to focus on these two hardware.

4, The PC versions are also a benefit thanks to the extra one-year development framework, as this gives more time for optimizations here and especially for bug fixes.

All in all, everyone is doing well. Compared to the current chaotic situation in the gaming industry, everyone would be better off with this system, and not incidentally, MS can boost sales of Xbox consoles and Gamepass subscriptions with this significantly increased console base.

#1 Microsoft tried it already, and Microsoft are no Nintendo.

#2 and #4 can't coexist. PC versions getting "an extra" year is only true if it was in development alongside the console versions.. and if that's the case, then "time allocated for console development can't be significantly reduced because it's only being developed for two closed systems in the first round."

#3 first part is already true, and again devs wont get to focus on just console if #4 is to remain true



I think if they did what you proposed.. the next console would be their last, and they would exit the game industry.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Interestingly, a number of think tanks across the world have been looking at what could be done to induce consumers to use the most energy-efficient options but as of yet no Government has put into effect any of the policy ideas, which include things like eliminating sales taxes (VAT in the UK) on products within a sector that are more very energy efficient.

Were this to happen in the gaming space it would be interesting to know where the dividing line was because it could be the Switch and Series S are considered the energy-efficient options and everything else isn't.

At the moment, Government's are hoping the market will sort itself out as in the cost of energy is being passed on to consumers and whether or not you can afford the energy is rally a matter for you, although some governments in Europe are subsidising some of the cost increases. Because the energy outlook is pretty damn dire, it only feels like a matter of time before one country puts into effect such a policy and if is perceive to be working, other governments will follow. As undesirable as it is, it's better than actual energy shortages, energy rationing between hours, brown-outs etc. I think the pandemic showed that in times of uncertainty, the public at large are pretty damn stupid.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the pandemic showed that in times of uncertainty, the public at large are pretty damn stupid.

My personal toilet roll mountain says otherwise...

 

[QPlayer]

#1 Microsoft tried it already, and Microsoft are no Nintendo.

When was that? During the time of the X360, many games were released earlier on the console and only later on the PC, and as far as I know, that generation was very successful in terms of the amount of consoles sold. I think the many (temporarily) exclusive games played a significant role in the success of the Xbox 360.

Microsoft now has about 60 game development studios, so it can create such a console-prioritized system because it has enough development resources for it.

Nintendo also became successful in the home console market when it started mass developing its games into its own closed and unique system. This does not mean that all games are only on Xbox, but if 10-15 games developed by the own studios were released this way every year, it would significantly increase the prestige of the Xbox brand and many more people would buy Xbox consoles.

 

[QPlayer]

They are trying to get out of the console space, and they are currently doing the right steps to remove themselves with needing to sell hardware.

logistics for large scale hardware isn’t their strength and they have major issues selling hardware everywhere. Whereas their data Center strategy is quite global and it is much easier to move their base to PC and cloud gaming.

I think the management of MS would be very satisfied with a situation where there are 120 million Xboxes sold and about 60 million of them are stable gamepass subscribers. This is much more than what has been achieved so far with the current formula.

 

[Nisaaru]

Did you see any government announcement or plan that tries to regulate PC energy consumption and how?

To me this agenda scenario you are referring to is a very huge assumption and I dont see how you are making the connections.
Governments care about the economy flowing in terms of trasnsactions, otherwise there will be stagnation. They don't want that.
You brought different subjects that are unrelated to this assumed agenda.

Look into "Net Zero" which is the global energy/resource agenda. It seems a lot of that stuff comes from the UK itself

Net Zero by 2050

The 2008 Climate Change Act introduced by Ed Milliband committed the UK in law to cut CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050. This target was already difficult to achieve, but since then Theresa May went one…

clivebest.com

The roadmap there is insane. If they implement that I lack the imagination why they would allow normal people to run games on 1000W PCs.

The original webpage has been killed a while ago but the article there sums up what the webpage was about and the already running social credit system behind the scenes.

The Social Credit System (CSQR-SM) and You, page 1

The Social Credit System (CSQR-SM) and You, page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com

IMHO the WEF's "you will own nothing but be happy" and "Build back better" stuff is about it.

Then you mention energy required to run expensive PCs. Just as every product there is a range from low tier to high tier hardware. People can be gaming on any of these.
I ve seen nothing from governments trying to budget people's personal resources in electronics. Most TVs energy efficiency is not optimal either. They are almost never in the A or B energy class consumption.

Current TVs are mostly G or F.

In terms of spending Consoles are also becoming very expensive to operate. Gaming on consoles often accumulate to more overall spending than on PC.

200-250 Watt to 1000Watt PSU PCs is surely a huge difference and the later defines the gaming scene. The point of my comment wasn't even "pro Consoles" either.

If they implement their agenda I wouldn't even be surprised if they consider iPad like devices and cloud services enough for normal people.

 

[MfA]

If they did this, it would just be short term profit taking. Of course xbox needs this to compete with playstation ... the problem is that playstation is not Microsoft's competitor and xbox has always been a side gig distraction with perverse incentives (xbox should just have been a windows MCE box with more strict hardware requirements, chromebook style, but that's water under the bridge).

 

[Remij]

If they did this, it would just be short term profit taking. Of course xbox needs this to compete with playstation ... the problem is that playstation is not Microsoft's competitor and xbox has always been a side gig distraction with perverse incentives (xbox should just have been a windows MCE box with more strict hardware requirements, chromebook style, but that's water under the bridge).

Yea. The way I see it... MS abandoned PC gamers back in the day to make Xbox.. and now them abandoning their console (it's happening slowly but surely) is "what goes around comes around"..

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I think Phil has it right. Let people play where they want to play. Xbox or PC. Doesn't matter.

 

[Seanspeed]

Where this is coming from? I think it sounds reasonable but any source to this ?

It's not well worded, but I think OP is proposing this as a suggestion rather than anything that's actually happening.

The only real advantage I see is that they can give extra time to make the console version as good as possible, which can possibly help the PC version be better as well. But this still has a downside in that PC gamers tend to be less excited about late console ports than games that are multiplatform on Day 1, where everybody shares in the hype and excitement of a new game release at the same time.

That said, I think one of Xbox's biggest problems right now is simply the reputation of their game quality, and so if they really felt this would shore that up, then it might be worth it. THAT said, I dont really think the existence of a day 1 PC version is the aspect holding back their 1st party stuff being better. I think there's been long-time studio management issues on Microsoft's end that leads to less than great results and they haven't figured out a good balance of hands-on versus hands-off that works. Though this is really just speculation.

 

[QPlayer]

I think Phil has it right. Let people play where they want to play. Xbox or PC. Doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure if Xbox One sales were better they wouldn't have been forced into this Day1 Console/PC philosophy. Which was originally created because their console sales decreased in the previous generation, and they wanted to further increase the Gamepass user base. This only partially worked out, since you can get the games on PC in other ways, cheaper and even for free...

I would be interested in your opinion, how would you increase the Gamepass user base in the current situation?

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Games orgy. That's the idea behind all the acquisitions.

For instance if MS had already owned ABK, their release schedule since June would have been: Diablo IV, Age of Empires IV, Starfield, Halo Infinite Season, Forza Motorsport, CoD:MW3 which would have been a really solid release cadence. Add 3rd party to that - Sea of Stars, P5:Tactica, City Skylines 2, Lies of P to round things out. That's a lot of 8+/10 content there.

2024: Hellblade 2, Avowed, Flight Sim 2024, CoD, Sea of Thieves Season. Add 3rd party like Ark 2, Persona 3:Remake, Towerborne, Stalker 2 to round things out.

I think they're getting there. With 30 dev teams cranking out a AAA game every 5 years, they can probably get to 6 AAA games per year. Their stated goal is quarterly AAA releases. Regular AAA game releases is what they need to drive GP sales.

They aren't ignoring AA either with things like Pentiment, Hi Fi Rush, Grounded etc... sprinkled in between the AAA releases.

 

[Sonic]

I'm pretty sure if Xbox One sales were better they wouldn't have been forced into this Day1 Console/PC philosophy. Which was originally created because their console sales decreased in the previous generation, and they wanted to further increase the Gamepass user base. This only partially worked out, since you can get the games on PC in other ways, cheaper and even for free...

I would be interested in your opinion, how would you increase the Gamepass user base in the current situation?

Content. Compelling content that keeps people subscribing month after month. There's enough dev teams, even with a few closures, to have the calendar covered with game releases throughout the year. Within 2 years I fully expect Microsoft to have gotten a cadence of releases that will keep the content flowing.

They may need to revisit the day 1 game pass thing at some point.

 

[MfA]

I'm pretty sure if Xbox One sales were better they wouldn't have been forced into this Day1 Console/PC philosophy. Which was originally created because their console sales decreased in the previous generation

I doubt it.

I think that just made it easier for the sane voices within Microsoft to shout down the xbox division. Xbox has no synergy with the rest of Microsoft and the xbox division has a perverse incentive to harm a critical differentiator of windows in the consumer space.

 

[JoeJ]

Did you see any government announcement or plan that tries to regulate PC energy consumption and how?

Iirc, Californa already has regulations affecting prebuilt gaming PCs, but not the DIY market.
Random google result which i did not read: https://www.pcgamer.com/high-end-gaming-pcs-are-exempt-from-the-cec-power-regulations/