Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy

[Shifty Geezer]

Where is your uncertainty coming from?

It's the difference between being mildly influenced and that being the only reason. The other reasons to release PS4Pro are probably the same as MS's and that was enough to get MS to create a midgen refresh too.

He is literally say he saw some data show shows a dip mid-console generation where PS4 players start migrating to PC.

So that happened - he saw data that suggested (but didn't confirm) that console players might migrate to PC.

He doesn't mention other data, other factors or anything else.

Doesn't mean there weren't any. And if there was only one reason to create the Pro, that could have been communicated far more exactly.

eg. I saw some data that made the case. We had clear evidence showing a dip mid-console lifecycle where the players who want the very best graphical experience will start to migrate to PC.

If there were more persuading factors, why not mention them instead?

Because they aren't great reasons for the public to know? Or it was an interview of limited time and not a investor breakdown or something and only worth highlighting one more interesting reason instead of listing a half dozen less-interesting ones?

I feel like it's time to draw a line under this, I'm not interested is debating the meaning of words so if what was said isn't convincing you then given that interview was eight years ago and Andrew House has left Sony, you're unlikely get any form of clarification.

Which is fine. However I can't accept in future that the only reason the 4Pro exists was to stop PC migration. I can accept it as one reason, and I can see other reasons and see value in speculating on those other reasons, particularly because MS also created a mid-gen refresh without telling us it was for the same reasons Sony created theirs.

Going back you your original comment:

"You also have to ignore Sony developing the PS4 Pro to mitigate PS4 users migrating to PC versions of games towards to end of that generation."

so long as comments like this are rephrased in future to something a little more open such as...

"You also have to ignore Sony developing the PS4 Pro in part to mitigate PS4 users migrating to PC versions of games towards to end of that generation."

...the dissection of House's interview need never happen again.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's the difference between being mildly influenced and that being the only reason. The other reasons to release PS4Pro are probably the same as MS's and that was enough to get MS to create a midgen refresh too.

He didn't say "mildly", he said "I was influenced". Please stop trying to change what he said to fit your narrative.

eg. I saw some data that made the case. We had clear evidence showing a dip mid-console lifecycle where the players who want the very best graphical experience will start to migrate to PC.

When has any exec - Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft - been that specific? You expectations isn't realistic.

Which is fine. However I can't accept in future that the only reason the 4Pro exists was to stop PC migration. I can accept it as one reason, and I can see other reasons and see value in speculating on those other reasons, particularly because MS also created a mid-gen refresh without telling us it was for the same reasons Sony created theirs.

Sure, this the PC migration data was the one that influenced.

so long as comments like this are rephrased in future to something a little more open such as...

"You also have to ignore Sony developing the PS4 Pro in part to mitigate PS4 users migrating to PC versions of games towards to end of that generation."

...the dissection of House's interview need never happen again.

I'll agree to that if you can evidence the others factors that influenced Sony to make PS4 Pro. Where we are is you have a belief that there are other factors, and that's fine. However, what isn't fine is you expecting to to change my evidence-based position based on your belief in lieu of presentable evidence. Get real, that is insane.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

He didn't say "mildly", he said "I was influenced". Please stop trying to change what he said to fit your narrative.

I know he didn't say mildly. He didn't quantify how much influence there was. I'm pointing out that, as such, we only know it's somewhere on the scale of influence, somewhere between 'mildly influenced' and 'the only reason' exactly as I said. It's likely quite significant as he considered it worth mentioning.

I kinda resent the language here "fit your narrative". I'm not trying to create a narrative to promote my viewpoint. I'm not saying what happened. I'm only questioning the validity of a viewpoint by pointing out ambiguities and uncertainties that I'm seeing. Indeed, it's you who has the narrative here and isn't particularly willing to question it. There's one rather weak signal and your saying that's the only thing to go off when logic and a wider understanding of context says that signal likely isn't the whole story.

I'll agree to that if you can evidence the others factors that influenced Sony to make PS4 Pro. Where we are is you have a belief that there are other factors, and that's fine. However, what isn't fine is you expecting to to change my evidence-based position based on your belief in lieu of presentable evidence. Get real, that is insane.

It's not insanity. It's a very sane, logical position. It's just one you disagree with and so you claim stupidity/insanity by anyone who thinks differently to you. I get that you don't get it. Feel free to drop the subject as you said you would, and everyone else reading can see the two viewpoints and decide which they agree with or not.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I know he didn't say mildly. He didn't quantify how much influence there was. I'm pointing out that, as such, we only know it's somewhere on the scale of influence, somewhere between 'mildly influenced' and 'the only reason' exactly as I said. It's likely quite significant as he considered it worth mentioning.

Influenced, adjective. You are treating an adjective as a passive verb. When talking about why the PS4 Pro exists, he said that data influenced him. In the absence of a quote or other evidence, anything more is pure speculation. Not only have you adopted this notion that there were other factors at play, but that they were all supporting the creation of a PS4 Pro, rather than perhaps reasons not to make a PS4 pro. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Andrew House only mentioned that data, so a fair conclusion that the data was the most important data that influenced the decision to create PS4 Pro. I'd add that according to Wikipedia, Andrew House has BA in English language and literature so let's presume he's not being lose with language and what he said was what he meant, knowing he would be quoted by The Guardian.

I kinda resent the language here "fit your narrative". I'm not trying to create a narrative to promote my viewpoint. I'm not saying what happened. I'm only questioning the validity of a viewpoint by pointing out ambiguities and uncertainties that I'm seeing.

Tough, because you are creating a narrative. The narrative you are pushing is that there were other reasons that Sony created the PS4 Pro, which isn't what Andrew House said, isn't what I infer from the article, nor indeed what any other gaming outlet took it mean either, then you literally suggested a new summary of the situation for me to use that fits your narrative. What was, it, "You also have to ignore Sony developing the PS4 Pro in part to mitigate PS4 users migrating to PC versions of games towards to end of that generation.".

Sony didn't say that, you did. It's your narrative, You literally wrote that.

It's not insanity. It's a very sane, logical position. It's just one you disagree with and so you claim stupidity/insanity by anyone who thinks differently to you.

I would defend your right to believe whatever you want, even if you want to believe the moon is made of cheese, but when provide new text for me to use that fits your narrative but not the original quote, then it becomes an insane position. It's not logical to assume there were a lot of other good reasons to create a PS4 Pro, because it's a model that has only resulted in commercial failure when tried perilously. Where is the logic? Because you chose to believe something doesn't make it logical.

 

[Remij]

Andrew House was asked about Microsoft as competition... his response was to dismiss that Xbox was their main competition and that it was actually PC where they were worried about losing people.

In absolutely no way does Andrew's statement suggest that it was the ONLY reason for the PS4 Pro to exist. We can CLEARLY think of multiple reasons why Sony wanted to push out a mid gen console.

-Their competitor (doesn't have to be main in their eyes) Xbox was doing so
-They have 4K TVs to sell
-They pride themselves on the graphical fidelity of their games
-Chance to rejuvenate their marketing campaign
-Loyal fanbase will buy it regardless

and so on. All perfectly logical reasons. Andrew answered the way he did, due to the way he was asked a question. It's not good publicity to sound like you're simply reacting to things that competitors are doing instead of charting your own path. Microsoft also doesn't consider Sony competition but rather mobile and cloud companies... ect ect.. that doesn't mean that Sony doesn't influence their decisions.. they'll never admit that publically.

But to suggest that PS4 Pro was created SOLELY to stop people from leaving PS4.. when that was never explicitly said.. is a narrative in its own right. Something that cannot be taken at face value.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not a narrative. You are acting as the prosecution, claiming the evidence tells a story, and I'm acting as the defence saying the evidence isn't without reasonable doubt. And then you're saying that to question the evidence is insanity.

The narrative you are presenting is:

"Andrew House saw some data showing some midgen PS players would migrate to PC for better visuals. He went to the engineers and asked what could be done about this. They came up with the idea of a mid-gen refresh that was more powerful and House set them to work on the 4Pro to reduce this migration."

I'm saying that's not the only possibility. For example (just an example of what might have happened and not what I'm claiming did happen. I'm not extolling any specific narrative):

"In a monthly meeting, Andrew House opened the floor to ideas as he always did and Mark Cerny said that, because of PS4's PC-like architecture, there an option of new hardware that was better than the existing console that previous consoles hadn't had. House asked various departments to speculate on the costs and value of such a device. The reports presented significant costs but also some broad projections on growth due to existing console pass-ons from current users upgrading. Profit margins on hardware weren't obvious at this point, and the value of these new consumers was hard to pin down between immediate buying habits and future ecosystem loyalty. House was left sitting on the fence. If the potential could be determined to be on the higher end of forecasts, it'd definitely be a good move, but how to get that data? He commissioned some market research that correlated previous hardware sales with software hoping to get a better idea of revenues from pass-on customers. However, within these reports was the surprise suggestion - not undeniable proof but certainly an indication of a possiblity - that PS fans would actually migrate to PC when the hardware started lagging. House ran these numbers by his execs who came up with some ecosystem loss figures. In combination with the other considerations, House concluded that the 4Pro was worth going ahead with.

He was then interviewed by the Guardian and, skipping past the boring parts, highlighted the bit that interested him most that he hadn't considered at the time of exploring the 4Pro - the unexpected migration aspect was what finally influenced him to go ahread with the project."



The single comment in the Guardian article, the only source on this whole issue, niether proves your story nor any alternate story that fits the sparse information. Discussing what might have happened is not insanity.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not a narrative. You are acting as the prosecution, claiming the evidence tells a story, and I'm acting as the defence saying the evidence isn't without reasonable doubt. And then you're saying that to question the evidence is insanity.

This is the internet, not a court. Nobody is defence or prosecution. I don't work for Sony and it's not my job to defend them. Again, Andrew House said a thing and your position is that's not the whole thing despite him not mentioning or suggesting that any other factors were at play.

The narrative you are presenting is:

"Andrew House saw some data showing some midgen PS players would migrate to PC for better visuals. He went to the engineers and asked what could be done about this. They came up with the idea of a mid-gen refresh that was more powerful and House set them to work on the 4Pro to reduce this migration."

The narrative you think I am presenting is exactly how this interview was also interpreted by a bunch of other sites - including (quick google) - GameRant, GameSpot, GDC, The Metro, PCGamesN, TweakTown. So no, the way many viewed this story is not my narrative, it is a common interpretation.

And again you are free to believe whatever you like, but in your post above where you wrote some text and suggested I use it going forward. This is what I take most issue with; you wanting me to present you zero-evidence narrative. No thanks, buddy. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

[davis.anthony]

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

A PC with a 4090 and 14900k would struggle to hit 1000w.

My 4070ti and Ryzen 7600 consumes less than 300w while gaming.

So where are you getting 1000w PC's from?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is the internet, not a court. Nobody is defence or prosecution. I don't work for Sony and it's not my job to defend them.

It's a metaphor, to help you understand the difference between a narrative and a counter that isn't a narrative.

Again, Andrew House said a thing and your position is that's not the whole thing despite him not mentioning or suggesting that any other factors were at play.

And you think that's so impossible as to be completely dismissible?? What were the logical holes in my example scenario above that reveal it could never have played out that way?

The narrative you think I am presenting is exactly how this interview was also interpreted by a bunch of other sites - including (quick google) - GameRant, GameSpot, GDC, The Metro, PCGamesN, TweakTown. So no, the way many viewed this story is not my narrative, it is a common interpretation.

Which makes no difference. It's a shared narrative; big deal, it's still the one you are choosing to tell and expecting everyone else to accept. Just because the internet repeats a story, doesn't make it true. And we all know a lot of modern journalism is just parroting. The fact all these sites parroted the same perspective doesn't change the reality of the facts at hand, which in this case consists of a single quote in one article and no other evidence. We can ignore all their interpretations and just go to the source. Isn't that what we prefer to do here? Go to the horses's mouth instead on relying on hearsay? So let's ignore what everyone else thinks and just look at the source ourselves, independently, and discuss that.

And again you are free to believe whatever you like, but in your post above where you wrote some text and suggested I use it going forward. This is what I take most issue with; you wanting me to present you zero-evidence narrative. No thanks, buddy. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Sure. But if you present in future the view that 4Pro only exists because of PC migration, expect me to respond with an alternative perspective again. And if you try to argue your view is the only right one and shouldn't be questioned, expect this same discussion again.

 

[Nisaaru]

A PC with a 4090 and 14900k would struggle to hit 1000w.

My 4070ti and Ryzen 7600 consumes less than 300w while gaming.

So where are you getting 1000w PC's from?

I go from the usual PSU sizes. The 4090 does 4xx Watt, afaik Intel reaches about 350. PSUs are 5-20% inefficient depending on quality/load. Mainboard+Memory+SSD+USB+Fans add things too.

P.S. The point wasn't really about 600 or 1000 Watt. The point was about the ideological agendas they want to implement globally where they want to define people's resource budget. I got into detail in the followup comments back then. I'm just asking how these products would fit into that budget and what the consequences could be product wise in the future. I think a lot people with the hobby have never thought about this because they aren't really aware of the global agendas.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

And you think that's so impossible as to be completely dismissible?? What were the logical holes in my example scenario above that reveal it could never have played out that way?

Even from the internet, that is a bad faith misrepresentation of my posts. Nowhere did I saw it's impossible there are other factors, what I've been consistent in saying is, that isn't what Andrew House said. He was quoted saying a thing. You think there is more to it. I am not dismissing what you believe, I've made it really clear I support your right to believe the moon is made of cheese if you wish.

If you want to have a conversation about what other [unsaid] factors may have contributed to a debate inside Sony as to whether a mid-generation console was a worthwhile endeavour, I'm happy too. But I haven't actually seen any discussion on that, only the claim that what Andrew House said wasn't the whole truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[eastmen]

If ms was planning on going third party why wouldn't they have done that while purchasing ABK. It would have saved them so much trouble.

Also while the xbox doesn't sell as much as the switch or ps5 it still sells a lot and still brings in revenue above and beyond MS's first party titles.

 

[Remij]

If ms was planning on going third party why wouldn't they have done that while purchasing ABK. It would have saved them so much trouble.

Also while the xbox doesn't sell as much as the switch or ps5 it still sells a lot and still brings in revenue above and beyond MS's first party titles.

You can easily make the case that they DID do that while purchasing ABK, or even Bethesda before them.

Microsoft is, at this point, gently inching itself to that end. I think MS still sees the value in having their box out there, and they see the value in not putting everything everywhere, at least at the same time.

With Bethesda and ABK, you have two massive publishing arms with multiple million seller franchises. Microsoft has done well to secure those studios and IPs for themselves and their core fans. Their core fans should realize that it's in MS' and thus Xbox's interest to have those franchises continue to bring in as much money as they can. However I do still think that it is important for Microsoft to keep some things exclusive to them.

Perhaps create an understanding with their fanbase that:
-ABK/Bethesda games will launch timed exclusive on PC/Xbox(Gamepass), then come 1-2 years later on Playstation/Nintendo
-Microsoft Game Studios games will launch fully exclusive to PC/Xbox(Gamepass) with no expectation from outside fans that they should ever be ported (but may still happen in super fringe cases)


I think that's the best strategy for Microsoft. Push hard with the Gamepass and deals for your platforms, keep the core fanbase satisfied that they're still getting "exclusive" games to themselves at those game launches.. and make as much money as you can off the broader audience on PS and Nintendo with the already wide reaching ABK and Bethesda IPs.

 

[eastmen]

You can easily make the case that they DID do that while purchasing ABK, or even Bethesda before them.

Microsoft is, at this point, gently inching itself to that end. I think MS still sees the value in having their box out there, and they see the value in not putting everything everywhere, at least at the same time.

Well you can't actually.

MS has never said they are purchasing ABK to become a fully 3rd party publisher. Infact throughout the case we have learned that MS has consistently made moves to secure more exclusive content for their platform and to at the very least insure that they didn't loose parity on large multiplatform games.

With Bethesda and ABK, you have two massive publishing arms with multiple million seller franchises. Microsoft has done well to secure those studios and IPs for themselves and their core fans. Their core fans should realize that it's in MS' and thus Xbox's interest to have those franchises continue to bring in as much money as they can. However I do still think that it is important for Microsoft to keep some things exclusive to them.

we know from the case that they have made multiple big Bethesda franshises exclusive to the xbox/ pc. Not only starfield but elder scrolls and indiana jones. If MS's hands weren't tied on other franchises I am sure a lot more games would be exclusive to the xbox and we may see more and more become exclusive as time goes forward

Perhaps create an understanding with their fanbase that:
-ABK/Bethesda games will launch timed exclusive on PC/Xbox(Gamepass), then come 1-2 years later on Playstation/Nintendo
-Microsoft Game Studios games will launch fully exclusive to PC/Xbox(Gamepass) with no expectation from outside fans that they should ever be ported (but may still happen in super fringe cases)

Anything that is single player then gamers will just wait for. Look at the base of pc gamers who don't mind waiting years to play sony games on playstation. Why would gamers purchase an xbox to play a handfull of games instead of buying a playstation and waiting a year or two for those microsoft games ? Then Microsoft looses out on 15-30% of all third party sales on the xbox and subs on the xbox because people stop buying their platform.

I think that's the best strategy for Microsoft. Push hard with the Gamepass and deals for your platforms, keep the core fanbase satisfied that they're still getting "exclusive" games to themselves at those game launches.. and make as much money as you can off the broader audience on PS and Nintendo with the already wide reaching ABK and Bethesda IPs.

Except like I said that if its a 1-2 year wait on mostly single player games a lot of people will just move off the platform and just wait for them to release on the playstation or nintendo platforms later on.


The xbox makes ms money on accessories , subscriptions , 3rd party royalities , movies , tv shows and I am sure other things. Those are huge revenue streams that will dwindle away as people simply buy another platform and wait for the game to finally show up on it.


With MS's purchases I think you are going to see even more console exclusives and best on xbox in the future which will actually grow those other revenue streams and not shrink them

 

[Remij]

Well you can't actually.

MS has never said they are purchasing ABK to become a fully 3rd party publisher.

Sure you can. They didn't have to come out and state anything. I'm not here to play semantics about "full" 3rd party and whatever else people want to use. They bought ABK 100% knowing that they would publish games on rival platforms. They were a 3rd party publisher already.. and they will continue to be that way. If people can't make the hop, skip, and jump, it takes from that, to where some of their other games might cross over, that's their own fault. The precedent was already set.

Gamers already had a very clear understanding that at least some ABK games would remain multiplat at the very least. That by definition makes MS a 3rd party developer.

 

[stu11]

Sure you can. They didn't have to come out and state anything. I'm not here to play semantics about "full" 3rd party and whatever else people want to use. They bought ABK 100% knowing that they would publish games on rival platforms. They were a 3rd party publisher already.. and they will continue to be that way. If people can't make the hop, skip, and jump, it takes from that, to where some of their other games might cross over, that's their own fault. The precedent was already set.

Gamers already had a very clear understanding that at least some ABK games would remain multiplat at the very least. That by definition makes MS a 3rd party developer.

Thats right Satya Nadella has recently said that Microsoft wants to be a "good publisher" on both Playstation and Nintendo.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said: "We love gaming. In fact, Flight Simulator was created before even Windows. But, we were number three, number four. And now with Activision, I think we have a chance of being a good publisher — quite frankly — on Sony and Nintendo and PCs and Xbox. We’re excited about that acquisition closing and I’m glad we’ve got it through.”

Nadella’s comments echo those he made last month, when he similarly said Microsoft plans to release games across all platforms: “We think that now we have the ability to do what we always set out to do, which is build great games and deliver them to folks across all platforms, which is Xbox and consoles, the PCs, and now even including mobile gaming and cloud gaming," he said at the time.

Of course games like the Halo's, Gears, Forza etc will be exclusive but there are rumors that Sea of Thieves and HIFI RUSH may make the jump to other systems.

 

[iroboto]

My 2 cents here as someone part of a sales team working with partners; nothing is easy.

Even upgrading the legacy SKUs of a partner to the latest ones that they want is a complete PITA.

I suspect, dropping your wares on competing platforms without an existing agreement probably takes some time to figure out.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

Thats right Satya Nadella has recently said that Microsoft wants to be a "good publisher" on both Playstation and Nintendo.



Of course games like the Halo's, Gears, Forza etc will be exclusive but there are rumors that Sea of Thieves and HIFI RUSH may make the jump to other systems.

Here is my two cents on this!

Microsoft had big plans for its console and game developing team. It invested 70 bilions on Activision, and had already spent 7.5 bilions on Zeminax.
They were not kidding here!

Problem is: Their image on the market of a company who over promisses and never delivers is damm bad. I wrote several articles on the beginning of this generation about the need of microsoft puting their games where their mouth was. But the generation went on, and we saw nothing. And their credit run over.
Two years without a single exclusive new generation game coming from their first party teams. And not a single system seller released.

Agree with this or not, the sales are there to show it. Xbox sales fell on the third year of existence! And the console presence in europe seems to be nearly dead!

Thankfully this does not kill Microsoft or their plans. They are too big for that! But prevents the future to be as planned! Microsoft is now one of the biggest publishers in the world, and it has no place to sell their games. Gamepass subscriptions are stalled, the console is not selling well, and PC is not enough to sustain so many studios.

This makes Nintendo and Playstation more a viable market than ever. Microsoft can still keep their games as exclusives for a couple years, but then, if needed, sell them on other consoles. Surprising as it may be, this may even work well! Look at how impossible it would seem, a couple years ago, to say exclusive console games on the PC would not kill consoles.

Microsoft can keep Gamepass on their consoles, bet on a lineup of streaming devices, and leave the classic console market to Sony and Nintendo, gaining it´s share there as a publisher.

It´s not as crazy as it seems! And it may even work!

So, do not be surprised if some day Halo gets released on Playstation. Without a console, and if this show itself to be the best way to profit from their studios, they should just do it.

As I said... These are just my two cents, and a honest oppinion on what I believe it would be best for the future of Microsoft on this market!

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Too early to panic IMO.

 

[QPlayer]

As far as I know in MS's business reports, the Xbox division generates a massive billion dollars in revenue every quarter. The truth is that Game Pass is already generating a profit that puts Xbox in a better position than ever. The fact that fewer consoles may have been sold so far is not the point. The point here is in subscriptions, which generate much more money than mere game sales. If anyone should be worried, it is rather the competition, who are certainly lagging behind in this regard.

The question here is not whether the console business is worth it for Microsoft, the question here is how many and what quality games are made for us gamers in this strategic model.