But that's not related to budgeting and they are concerned about the energy spent on idle.
That's probably mostly related to energy waste and hidden energy costs to the consumer.
Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy
- Thread starter QPlayer
- Start date
That's probably mostly related to energy waste and hidden energy costs to the consumer.
But you are still mixing too many unrelated elements.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 1www.abovetopsecret.com
IMHO the WEF's "you will own nothing but be happy" and "Build back better" stuff is about it.
Current TVs are mostly G or F.
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.
The CO2 concerns is unrelated to the WEF comment. The WEF comment was an envisioned business model, not a government one. Businesses see more profit in leasing you and keeping you a perpetual customer. That can range from a service to a tangible expensive product. Even a house or a car.
If everything is moving to cloud or iPads and Tablets for energy concerns then consoles will also be at risk. If the point is to reduce energy consumption which is where consoles are favored then PC products will also adjust to lower consumption, hence there is no incentive to abandon it or reduce support. But we don't see such a signal. Even Sony supports PC more than ever.
TVs like you said are in the G and F energy consumption too. And they continue producing bigger,more expensive more sophisticated panels that require energy for more their processors, computing capabilities and HDR features
You say MS is supporting XBOX more probably, because of those government agendas. But those actually in the hardware business don't signal anything as such. NVIDIA and AMD are continuously building on a roadmap of expensive high energy consuming GPUs.
If power plants change to "green energy" solutions, which is the point, then there will be less worry for energy consumption producing CO2
My view is that MS knows very well that a simple game box called a console can provide much more revenue opportunities, with its simple greatness and affordable pricing than the uncertain and increasingly expensive PC game market in the long run. They needed and have a console that is packaged with a serious brand name. Just because the chariot doesn't run that well with their current philosophy doesn't mean they aren't working to make it run much better. The PC market is just a necessary support at the moment, which compensates somewhat for the situation. I don't believe that they would receive such a large amount of income from the PC market as far as games are concerned.
Of course, the situation can be set up in such a way that "games play anywhere" is a good thing, but it is very likely that this is just a forced marketing slogan until they figure out how to boost sales of the Xbox console.
Nintendo is a shining example of how you can slide down from a high place and then climb back up again: after a weak GC, Wii paradise, WiiU downhill, Switch heaven.
Hopefully MS is working on redefining the Xbox Series next year. We will see how this is done.
The Stakeholder business concept by the WEF/UN, aka. Neofeudalism, is directly connected to the Social Credit System and UDSR which then enables them to restrict people's resource usage based on the class system outlined in the available CBDC/CSRQ informations.
Right, just depends on how radical they will be implementing the resource management and it would obviously take phases.
I'm not saying that MS/XBox is already operating based on these agendas *but* I'm just sketching out what would happen when they phase this stuff in.
Yeah it's businesses that want this. It is unrelated to government trying to budget you. Its related to businesses wanting to monitor and control fully your needs
How is that relevant to the fact that there is nothing that signals PCs are at a unique disadvantage over consoles currently? Everything you mention is an imagined What If scenario
Why talk about assumed scenarios when there is nothing of the sorts at this point that affects MS's current strategy?
When Apple launches their M3 Apple TV, having paid some AAA developers to create some hype for gaming on it, I can promise you it won't be some weird architecture and API. Games will run on Mx Macbooks.
Microsoft support for PC gaming is not about direct revenue, it's about keeping windows relevant to consumers.
The WEF are operating above the national governments where they install their candidates. The WEF is just another facet of the global governance structure like the WHO. Blackrock/Vanguard/Statestreet run and own the world.
Because they are not imaginary. It's their agenda and the *instruments* are already running behind the scenes. I have just extrapolated the consequences for our little hobby here.
I'm pretty sure I'm already far out of the box for this thread but the topic is so much bigger and will affect us.
Some data points worth considering here.
If you look at the volume differences, revenue differences and profit differences. There’s not really a singular clear cut strategy for success.
I think you’re seeing MS carve their own path here. If game pass is profitable, they are probably doing pretty good overall considering.
This is fine, but what is the real profit from this? And the important question is how to effectively increase the number of Game pass subscribers? Currently there is a minimally growing Xbox Series base, a residual Xbox One base (those waiting to see what hardware they will buy in the future!) and a seemingly stagnant PC base. If, on the other hand, twice as many new consoles are sold, the number of subscribers will probably increase accordingly. What is the better strategy for growing subscribers?
There’s less profit from Xbox GP users compared to PC. Just due to the hardware component.
I think Phil has mentioned in a recent interview that the majority of growth is in the PC space. And I think most can assume that Xbox is no longer in a position to take more market share of the console space due to library and ecosystem lock in.
The future of growth for Xbox will be everyday devices in people’s homes: so tablets, phones, and TVs. The ability to do away with shipping and logistics of warehousing and regional stocking, various home certifications all go away. They just need their data centres that they are already investing so much into.
The thing is, and silicon isn’t getting any cheaper or easier to produce. If you want more graphical power, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where graphical output is higher without the power and heat going way up. We are rapidly approaching a physics boundary where consoles that typically fit in TV stands will no longer be able to because of the cooling requirements - it’s difficult to determine how far we can go given the strict size and cooling requirements and cost requirements of consoles.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying, including what Spencer was talking about. However, the fact that there is currently an increase in Game Pass on the PC market is, in my opinion, possible in this form because the Xbox user base is slowly increasing due to their strategy so far.
I have read this several times, that it is not possible to gain a larger market share due to the closure of the ecosystem, etc. But we could see an example of how the Xbox 360 achieved success due to good management decisions and many exclusive games, even though, as I recall, few people believed that this would be possible after the more than 100 million PS2 userbase. It was the same with the Wii after the unpopular Gamecube. They were laughed at, looked down on, that nothing would come of it because people are comfortable and don't like jumping in front of the TV... then we know the meme, "Its print money".
My understanding is that Phil said that the Xbox market is saturated fully, in terms of GP subs for Xbox market. Naturally, you could try to increase the Xbox market but that caps at 250M units, or the entire console marketplace. Or you can go for cloud which gives you access to 2B devices.
But on the topic of why 360 and not Series. Phil also mentioned that the one generation they should not lose was the last, and this is because everyone has gone digital and now libraries are locked with BC etc. the days of their breakout during 360 won’t happen again, there’s no longer such an opportunity.
Of course. Businesses interested in owning you, not in them interested in limited CO2 emissions nor governments trying to limit your spending.
But the specific scenario that "their agendas" are possibly affecting gaming at and MS possibly responding to it, is at this point imaginary and too much of a big assumption
Also GP has been out longer on XB and so already reached a larger install proportion. In short, all the GP subscribers from XB are already secured; now to start getting GP users on Windows. GP growth on PC may also be slower due to the nature of PC gamers and existing huge Steam libraries full of Steam Sale purchases that haven't yet been played, yet alone adding a catalogue of hundreds of more titles via GP...
What's the source of this new Xbox strategy?
Qplayer is suggesting that they go this route.
No change on Xbox strategy so far.
Updated title to make the thread clearer.
I, and think many others are here primarily for the games and the gaming experience. Business is one thing, I want to play a lot of good Xbox games because the company's first party portfolio fits my needs perfectly. I am writing these lines with this in mind, and as a gamer want many good games to be available on my comfortably used console.Also GP has been out longer on XB and so already reached a larger install proportion. In short, all the GP subscribers from XB are already secured; now to start getting GP users on Windows. GP growth on PC may also be slower due to the nature of PC gamers and existing huge Steam libraries full of Steam Sale purchases that haven't yet been played, yet alone adding a catalogue of hundreds of more titles via GP...
However, I don't like the current direction, e.g. game delays, unoptimized buggy releases, and above all the few exclusives that once defined and defined the Xbox brand so beautiful. I am aware that the problems listed above are part of a global issue in the current game industry, but more exclusive titles could improve this a lot. Because a console is basically sold by games, even if they are hidden behind a kind of subscription. Because if there are not enough unique titles, gamers' interest in the given platform also decreases. In the end, it's always the games that matter.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Well, that's why they bought 40 studios.
Similar threads
- Poll