cheapchips
Veteran
Secondhand trading (for a fee) and game sharing (some of which they still have). Not brilliant, but at least better than where we are. Got to start somewhere right?
Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy
- Thread starter QPlayer
- Start date
Secondhand trading (for a fee) and game sharing (some of which they still have). Not brilliant, but at least better than where we are. Got to start somewhere right?
How is that better than what we have now? All games (pseudo) physical or digital were going to be subject of MS's control and fees. Besides I think that "solution" to be able to trade with a fee was something they came up later as damage control after the always online requirement and games being locked under your account made people angry.
Every game I have now in physical, I can share or buy or sell used at any price the market makes available too.
Game sharing exists. We didn't need MS's DRM controls to be involved at all to be able to do that.
MS could have easily kept physical as is and still enable the "game sharing" and digital transfer of non physical. But they wanted everything locked under their DRM because the purpose was to eliminate rentals and free second hand sales and sharing
You can't trade or sell download titles.
Which is great for physical games, but not digital which is how most games are being sold, and now there are even digital only consoles. I really wish I could sell my license of Diablo 4!
cheapchips
Veteran
"Which DRM manager offers the best second hand fees for Diable 4? Think it's Epic store at the moment. Might move my library over there"
It's not an amazing future of ownership, but we could have gone down a better path. It died, stillborn in Don Mattrick's hands, while Sony and Nintendo laughed, holding physical games proudly to camera as retail sat quietly dying in the corner.
Or something. Probably would have just ended up with slightly longer queues to trade Xbox One games and it wouldn't have evolved past there.
It's not an amazing future of ownership, but we could have gone down a better path. It died, stillborn in Don Mattrick's hands, while Sony and Nintendo laughed, holding physical games proudly to camera as retail sat quietly dying in the corner.
Or something. Probably would have just ended up with slightly longer queues to trade Xbox One games and it wouldn't have evolved past there.
Last edited:
So how about offering the option to do it with digital games WITHOUT affecting physical games?
Read my whole post
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I'm somewhere in between on MS strategy this generation. I think they could have done better with some games - Halo Infinite, Starfield and Forza Motorsport should have been 9s instead of 8.5s and Redfall should have been cancelled, but the Xbox library is overall better than the PS library this generation IMO. Especially if you look at the GamePass library and not just 1st party. They probably shouldn't have diverted X blades to the cloud during the chip shortages. The S strategy was "ok", but would have been a lot better if $200 meant anything anymore after inflation spiked. Console pricing has proven to be fairly inelastic. Not something easy to have foreseen.
But I'm ok with the narrative that they couldn't have done that much better given the digital ecosystem lock-ins. That really was a mistake from the past that Spencer couldn't do anything about. Last generation was split 120/60. Does anyone really believe that MS could have done better than 110/70, even though in our minds we erroneously really thought it was a "fresh" generation 3 years ago? They are on track right now for about 130/50, which is bad, but not really far from realistic expectations. The home console market just isn't growing really. All the kids are on mobile or Switch and many are going to PC. Even 4% growth from 2006 to now would have 300+ million home consoles in a generation and we're not even close to going there. Maybe 200 million. It's hard to get new owners under these conditions, so then they need to "steal" PS users, which is almost impossible unless Sony messes up really badly.
But I'm ok with the narrative that they couldn't have done that much better given the digital ecosystem lock-ins. That really was a mistake from the past that Spencer couldn't do anything about. Last generation was split 120/60. Does anyone really believe that MS could have done better than 110/70, even though in our minds we erroneously really thought it was a "fresh" generation 3 years ago? They are on track right now for about 130/50, which is bad, but not really far from realistic expectations. The home console market just isn't growing really. All the kids are on mobile or Switch and many are going to PC. Even 4% growth from 2006 to now would have 300+ million home consoles in a generation and we're not even close to going there. Maybe 200 million. It's hard to get new owners under these conditions, so then they need to "steal" PS users, which is almost impossible unless Sony messes up really badly.
Last edited:
whatever the statement is , i hope its extremely clear. IF they are gong third party so be it , but make it clear and if they are going to stay making exclusives for the xbox then make it clear. The way they dance around everything is what allows all these rumors to linger.
Also it would be hilarious if they went through all the court shit about making indiana jones xbox exclusive only to turn around and release it on other platforms. But from working at Ms it wouldn't surprise me honestly
Physical is going away
Digital loan or second hand sale is what is important for the future
Charlietus
Regular
If next gen Xbox is coming out in 2026, I don't really think developers would take it well.
Developers would have to support the series s, the x, the next gen console and the mobile on the platform that sells the least. Four consoles with very different hardware.
I find this rumor very hard to believe.
Developers would have to support the series s, the x, the next gen console and the mobile on the platform that sells the least. Four consoles with very different hardware.
I find this rumor very hard to believe.
cheapchips
Veteran
It's the low end that's the main challenge to developers isn't it? The 2026 console development will just be like pretty much every XSX/PS5 title for the last four years. Cranked up effects, resolution and frame rate.
I'd like MS to ditch generations, open up the OS to OEMs and see how those chips fall. At least that'd be interesting.
MS and Sony releasing virtually identical machines every eight years is quite a dull prospect. More so when big budget development doesn't support non cross gen titles for half their lifespan.
If MS do go with 2026, generations are over for them I think. We'll just get a new machine when there's a meaningful power jump. Every 3-4 years?
I'd like MS to ditch generations, open up the OS to OEMs and see how those chips fall. At least that'd be interesting.
MS and Sony releasing virtually identical machines every eight years is quite a dull prospect. More so when big budget development doesn't support non cross gen titles for half their lifespan.
If MS do go with 2026, generations are over for them I think. We'll just get a new machine when there's a meaningful power jump. Every 3-4 years?
I read the whole post and don't disagree. However, you asked what was better so I told you.
From an execution POV, I think there's sense it having a unified system for disc and download. I mean, the disc system was just a download already downloaded onto polycarbonate. Being able to transfer a license from disc to a download only console or onto a new machine (that doesn't have a disc drive as its in The Future) is quite a nice feature. The negatives of used disc licensing, so easily derided, came with an upside that just wasn't valued at the time; although MS screwed the communication so much it didn't have a fair consideration.
Xbox 360 shows they can succeed. They just executed terribly with the Series consoles in every aspect other than hardware power.
XB360 shows they could have succeeded. I think two subsequent flops places MS in a very difficult spot now. Unless gamers have a reason not to get PS, they'll stick with it. We even see that at a notable price penalty, PS5 outsells XBSX. Whereas Nintendo found themselves a competitive angle, MS is just going toe-to-toe and losing. They're attempts to get a USP like Kinect (forced camera in XBO) were contrived and didn't connect. All they can do is offer the same content on the same hardware with a different front-end, basically.
Without some disruptive move on new hardware, I can't see how MS can turn things around.
Without some disruptive move on new hardware, I can't see how MS can turn things around.
Perhaps but there wasn't any technical hardware talk in your post so the actual content, about MS's ability to compete, fits better here. Any derived hardware specs from that business discussion can be posted in the Tech Prediction thread but they need to be hardware specs.
I definitely believe there's some major arrogance involved with Microsoft/Xbox strategy, thinking they should be able to be top dog somehow, all without having to actually deliver on the most basic, though also arguably most challenging aspect - delivering a steady stream of hit games. They seem to think there's gonna be this magic 'alternative' solution that gets them ahead if they just keep trying things.
But you could argue that the success they had with the 360 was entirely down to Sony messing up with the PS3. Had they not arrived a year late and over-priced and instead got it right with that generation then the 360 would not have had anywhere near the same measure of sucess it did. Maybe that was a false flag that MS read way too much into?
I dont know, I think you're ignoring a lot of what happened back then. PS3 was 'powerful', but it was also highly notable for its lackluster multiplatform releases due to its major issue with simply being terribly difficult to design for/port to. So more often than not, games were simply better to play on X360. PS3's lack of games was also highly notable, so much so that it became a popular meme "PS3 has no games". This was made fun of later on, but the period from like 2006 to 2009 was somewhat rough in terms of exclusives for them.
Honestly, PS3 was salvaged heavily by its reputation built on PS1/PS2. Any other brand and the PS3 would have been a much bigger disaster that never had the chance to recover the momentum in the huge way they did. Sales were never outright bad. But I do think they showed the merit in finishing strong and simply focusing on making great games above all else, also helped by X360 doing the opposite. Even if you cant outright win a generation(PS3 vs X360 was basically a tie), you still want to make sure gamers believe in you. And that is Xbox's challenge right now. They've already 'lost' this generation, but they've got time to recover and get gamers back on their side. It's just a matter of how they think they can do that, and I'm not super confident they'll come to the right conclusions.
Microsoft only have one strategy when it comes to getting ahead in any market. Outspend you competitors and buy your way to the top. They've done this ever since Windows 3.11 became the defacto standard OS in the PC space. It's not working in the game space though, which must really annoy them.
Similar threads
- Poll