Which is exactly why I believe that Xbox consoles will continue to exist. The PC is an open platform and because of this can never replace what Xbox brings to the table for them. And the PC market will not allow MS to turn the PC into a closed platform. I have never found a good reason to not run Windows on my PCs, but MS locking down content distribution would be an excellent one.
What MS, Sony, Nintendo should be or are doing next
- Thread starter Nesh
- Start date
Which is exactly why I believe that Xbox consoles will continue to exist. The PC is an open platform and because of this can never replace what Xbox brings to the table for them. And the PC market will not allow MS to turn the PC into a closed platform. I have never found a good reason to not run Windows on my PCs, but MS locking down content distribution would be an excellent one.
Ms is going to continue to push forward with the windows store , it keeps getting better with each update. I've been using it for a few games. However I don't think they will ever stop making the xbox line. I just don't think it requires a crazy investment anymore , just go to AMD and get a slightly custom apu and design a case for it and put it out and that's it. I do think they will beef up their first party tho
They've replaced the to-the-metal coding model of console with an API abstraction and VM. They've changed the PC graphics pipeline to be nigh as efficient as a console. They've introduced cross-device games in UWP such that you can buy a game for your console and then play the same thing in better quality when you buy a nice new PC with honking Intel CPU and discrete GPU.
Contrast that with the original XBox where MS approached two other console players to use Windows and they declined and then MS rushed a console out the door. There was zero cross connection with PC other than using DirectX. In three generations they've closed the gap significantly. To me it's very obvious that MS are making moves to try and get away from the difficult hardware market and stay with the more profitable software. See for example VR - where Sony has to create a HW platform and support that, MS rolls out a VR standard for Windows letting the IHVs fight over narrow-margin hardware competition.
It's not locking down content distribution, but competing to make their store the only one worth using (in the same way Steam currently is). Steam will exist, you can buy Steam games, but when the Windows Store bought apps run on all your Windows devices including your Windows box under the TV with an XBox badge on it, why buy from Steam?
And to me, it's very obvious that MS are designing and selling more of their own devices than they ever have since the inception of the Surface line and continue to show that where there are end-user use cases that are not being catered to by a device running their software they will make their own.
At this time, no one but MS is going to make a gaming device that can only acquire content through MS's store. And no consumer is going to buy such a device unless that device is more capable than a generic Windows box that is not so restricted. Therefore, MS needs to keep making new Xboxes utilizing custom hardware if they want to have a viable digital storefront at least through the Scorpio's lifetime and for an indefinite period after.
A $1000+ high-end tablet sold alongside competing platforms. Similarly Hololens is a $xxxx device. If XBox becomes a generic open standard that other IHVs can build to, I wouldn't be surprised to see an MS branded $750 high-end XBox sold alongside $400 Dell XBoxes. What they don't want, and they've said this since the beginning, is to compete toe-to-toe with the unpredictably, often lossy hardware market. A generation, planned years in advance and with little room to change once committed to, can wipe out all your profits from a previous generational success. It's too bloody unstable! No-one really wants to be stuck with that. Let the IHVs worry about making affordable boxes, and just take your cut of the software sales a la Google.
Why not in the future? Why is it okay for companies to make Android devices that use Google's store, but not Windows devices that use Window's store? Why is Alienware and Dell and Lenovo and Asus be okay making PCs that use Steam and whatever stores, but not be happy to make living-room Windows boxes that use Windows Store?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And there's no technical reason a console couldn't also run Windows 10 if Microsoft want to do this. Microsoft don't care about the PC (which can run many operating systems), they care about Windows. I'm not following your talk of locking down content distribution or PC not being open. Who is suggesting that?
I said put Windows 10 on Scorpio.
Uhm...because I already have 150 games on Steam and really don't want to be bogged down with another store front from EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Blizzard or even GoG for the sake of a few titles?
The reason I have a private Windows box at all at this point in time is to play games, primarily from Steam. I have no desire whatsoever to run Windows everywhere.
Can't really see the appeal for a PC gamer like me to buy an Xbox with the same games as I can already play with greater flexibility, higher quality and lower price on the PC which can also be connected to the TV if I so please. Or do they want to migrate Xbox owners to start gaming on Windows boxes? Can't see that being terribly attractive to those who bought a cheap under-the-TV box for some gaming.
At the end of the day I just don't see much of a point for Microsoft to dabble in console gaming at all, IMHO they should do all they can to make their Windows platform cash cow more attractive, rather than competing with themselves. Nine out of ten PCs are Windows boxen, X out of ten consoles are Xboxes. Makes sense to steer consumers away from consoles rather than the other way around.
That's just you.
Yes. Doesn't matter what box people play Halo, GTA, etc. on as long as MS get paid every time someone buys a computer game.
A cheap under-the-TV box can be a PC.
What are MS supposed to do about the 80 million previous XBox 360 owners and 150 million potential console gamers out there? Just ignore them? Or try to get them onto Windows gaming to avoid having to provide them hardware?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Nor do I but that ship sailed years ago. On PC you either supplement Steam with other stores or you go without.
A unified store is nice and makes it a very smooth experience. But im not sure how that in itself is a sales pitch
It assumes a large part of the PC market is interested in investing in a console. If they dont then where is the value in the Windows store? The price for a Play Anywhere game is much more than on any other store because you get an Xbox copy
It assumes console gamers will buy a console because they can play the same game on a PC. If they dont own a PC, where is the value in the Xbox?
The problem is that the people who care about Microsofts core gaming franchises already invested in it. And thats simply not enough.
It assumes a large part of the PC market is interested in investing in a console. If they dont then where is the value in the Windows store? The price for a Play Anywhere game is much more than on any other store because you get an Xbox copy
It assumes console gamers will buy a console because they can play the same game on a PC. If they dont own a PC, where is the value in the Xbox?
The problem is that the people who care about Microsofts core gaming franchises already invested in it. And thats simply not enough.
I've not looked but how much more is a play anywhere title?
I was under the impression it was the same price, and you just get free licence to play on other device.
You have a game on PC. You want to play it on your TV. What are your options? Steam Machine? Laggy wireless game streaming? Wouldn't it be better to have a Windows box that runs whatever you want?
It assumes people want to play games. It's only consolers and PCers that make this distinction. In real terms we don't actually give a shit about what our box is so long as it plays the games we want to play. The only reason for consoles and PCs that do the same game-playing task is because of their disparate evolution, and PCs being lousy at playing certain types of games or doing so in a user-friendly way such that consoles were needed. But if a Windows box could provide a console experience, Joe Gamer would be happy to have it under their TV, and the benefit of being able to play the same game on the TV box and the office PC when someone else has the living-room TV occupied and the laptop while away, and potentially even a subset of the library playing on your mobile phone, is undeniable.
It's a very solid vision. Sadly I doubt MS's ability to execute anything meaningful in the next ten years.
But I do expect to see them manoeuvring their console products towards this unified vision and have the strongest USP of all, something Sony and Nintendo will never be able to match.Im not denying there is value to this. But the question is to how many people? Some of the most popular PC games would be unplayable with a controller and TV input lag
And it wont run whatever i want. It will run the apps available on the windows store
Im not sure if i agree. Maybe its due to the limitations of consoles and not the mindset of the gamers. But you have two different experiences here, PC gamers dont pay for multiplayer, they can mod the games to their hearts content, they can mess with the setting in an infinite amount of ways. The open nature of a PC is what makes it an attractive platform in the first place, i dont think they want a console experience. Reddit PC and gaf hate UWP apps with a passion
My point is that you dont sell an Xbox by pitching the Windows Store and you dont increase the stores popularity by pitching the Xbox. The problem is that both are struggling right now so neither is an attractive option for a consumer outside Microsofts core gaming market
I was comparing it to physical disc. You only get free license if you buy it digitally wich was 70 euros. But these are Microsofts own games, no way a third party publisher gives away a free copy. Either Microsoft eats the cost or the consumer has to pay for it. So Resident Evil 7 will be 59 euros on Steam, 70 euros (if its play anywhere) on Windows store
Try to get them to the PC platform, obviously, but the way to achieve that isn't necessarily complete unification of the two software platforms. Not because it is a bad idea per se, it just doesn't carry a lot of appeal for anyone as far as I can see, and Jubei put it better than me.
At the end of the day, the XBoxOne sells in absolutely pitiful numbers compared to Windows boxes. Microsofts previous policy were they directed developers to their console, and released games exclusively for their console platform was lunacy. Weakening the attractiveness of the PC vs. consoles where they have never achieved a market share greater than a third (even if you exclude handhelds) was self-destructive.
So yes, if I were CEO of Microsoft I would bury the Xbox, and put my muscle behind promoting the PC platform for home entertainment with its broader utility than any console as main sales pitch.
It seems they will give it another go with Scorpio though. We'll see how that plays out.
if that's the strategy why not turning Scorpio into a true Windows machine? I mean, a closed layer for console gaming, as usual, and a highly controlled layer for PC users with Windows 10 as the OS, so everyone is happy, 'cos a classic console doesn't seem to be what they are after.
halo wars 2 is a play anywhere title with a physical release, don't know cost of it though.
also is that digital cost for play anywhere any more expensive than ones that aren't play anywhere on the store?
eat the cost? That depends on how many people actually would buy both to begin with, compared to how much they make due to it being tied to a digital licence cutting down on second hand market etc etc.
buying both may not be something people generally do, but the perk of being able to play on both may appeal to them or at least be seen as a value add.
How do the different manufacturers differentiate their offerings? Multiple hardware specs? Exclusive software? What about the risk of Android-style fragmentation?
Isn't this the 3DO model?
If I'm Dell/HP/Lenovo why do I want to make these? Who sets pricing? If I'm MS how do I stop this from becoming a race to the bottom with quality and the Xbox gaming brand suffering as a result?
Who fits the bill for R&D on the hardware? MS still? Isn't part of the arrangement with the development partner a guarantee of a certain number of orders of the finished components? Who is on the hook for this? Do you instead move to entirely off-the-shelf hardware? Don't you then get creamed on price/performance if your competition doesn't also follow this route?
They set the prices. I doubt the hardware market has been lossy for them in quite some time.
I think the way these consoles are developed now makes this much less of a danger. The relative lack of ambition of the hardware in this last generation reflects a desire to not push the envelope to quite the degree that is has been in the past.
Because it doesn't work for consoles? Nvidia Shield was this. It's now a streaming box. Also have you seen how volatile the Android hardware market is? Console buyers don't seem wild about disruptions in the status quo. Are they going to be receptive to having multiple hardware manufacturers to choose from? I've seen people completely paralyzed by having to choose between similar laptops from different manufacturers. Does MS want to bring this to the console market?
Because no one would buy a box that supported Windows Store exclusively unless that box was a better value than one that supported Windows Store along with Steam/Origin/GoG whatever.
In short, I don't think this is going to happen because it looks to me to be a terrible idea that creates more problems than it solves.
Without content provider lock-in, Scorpio doesn't exist. The only reason a 6TF SoC will exist in 2017 is because MS will be able to count on the revenue from the guaranteed content sales that will be generated by each unit sold.
