Xbox leadership and the Xbox brand evaluation *spawn

Define what you mean by suffer
Well, it was really about you criticising GP for having a negative effect on MS's games/purchases so it's up to you to define the negative impact you apparently believe in.

So give us an example which games GP hurt and which games were available but weren't bought because they didn't fit GP.
 
As I stated earlier: What's wrong with MS putting out Gears 6 on GP in 2026 and then putting it out on PS6 in 2028 or 2029 and selling another 5 million copies and generating another $150+ million in revenue to half-fund Gears 7 on GP? Seems smart to me as long as they message it right.
 
It does make a difference. Most of Sega's history is one of them putting their IP on multiple, sometimes competing, platforms. Altered Beast, Gain Ground, and Golden Axe had ports to PC platforms like Amigia, AtariST and some 8bit computers while Sega was trying to establish the Genesis. But more importantly, they were released for NEC's PC Engine - Their main competitor in the then "next generation" console space in the time before the launch of the Super Nintendo. And Sega made a PC push almost exactly when Saturn was released worldwide. It started with some Genesis and SegaCD games, and quickly transitioned to Saturn releases. It's important to remember that Saturn's first year was pretty competitive against Playstation. They may have even won Japan. This may not have been a desperation move, but more of a return to their multiplatform strategy that they had when they launched Genesis.

It makes even more of a difference if you are trying to equate Sega's multiplatform history with what Xbox is trying now. Xbox's big PC push, came during the Xbox One era, when they didn't really have a foothold in the console space. They've been in 3rd place since Nintendo retired the WiiU and launched the Switch. Sega used a strategy of putting their games on multiple platforms, including their direct competitors (NES and PC Engine), to eventually have a successful console in Genesis.
that gives another insight on console exclusives. Because we got used to exclusive being 100% exclusive as a measure of success, and that's not true at all, not in the past, not now, given what we are seeing these days.
 
Except... Sega was simply returning to a strategy that helped them attain success one generation earlier. They did it almost immediately, when the Saturn was doing well enough, and soon enough in the generation that I don't think we can really say it was a knee jerk panic reaction. They set up a new division just to do PC stuff. That doesn't just happen overnight.

Also, Microsoft was releasing games on PC, including big titles like Gears, Halo, and new to them IP like Shadowrun, all through their console life. Maybe not always day and date, but there were also PC releases that had later ports to Xbox, so timed exclusivity was a 2 way street between console and PC. They even released games or licensed their IP for Nintendo DS, and even GBA. Some were published or developed by other studios, and sometimes, like in the case of Diddy Kong Racing on DS, it was a game made by a Microsoft Studio using someone else's (Nintendo in this case) IP. There were key Microsoft IP like the Madness series, Age of Empires and others released other platforms. Even before the "Xbox games on other consoles" freakout everyone had, Xbox Games Studios games made their way to other platforms. Minecraft is the obvious example, but the Ori games, published by XGS and an Xbox exclusive, ended up on Switch as well. The Switch games have the Xbox logo on the box and everything.

I guess I just can't see it as a panic move if it's something you've basically done before, have continued to do, and has a proven track record of success.
And Nintendo and Sony standing firm... Yeah, it's something they have done before, have continued to do, and has a proven track record of success for them.
Except Sega Saturn wasnt doing well enough at all. It was struggling from the beginning. It was doing well only in Japan.
Regarding XBOX, the games you mention had a history on Nintendo and audience on PC beforehand. Not much different from when Sony had Planetside, Everquest or DC Universe Online. Or when they got Bungie and owned Destiny 2 which prexisted everywhere. Same with Minecraft. Minecraft was a multiplatform game before they were even bought and remained as such. It was never had a reputation tied to a particular console. Releasing on GBA and DS are irrelevant as they were no competitors to XBOX and had no effect on XBOX. You should bring relevant examples.

Now regarding Halo, Gears and Forza, yes thats exactly proving the point I made earlier. Thank you. Most Halo, Gears and Forza games were NOT seeing releases on PC. These were console sellers. They were defining the XBOX experience. Until they werent. Past games saw releases as remasters years after when Microsoft decided to bring all their franchises on PC, while every new game from 2016 onwards saw day 1 releases.

Neither Sega, nor Nintendo nor Sony were ever releasing all their games on PC day 1. And neither was MS, for some time.
Sega started releasing most of their titles on PC when they were struggling. Especially those Sega Saturn "killer apps"
 
Last edited:
Well, it was really about you criticising GP for having a negative effect on MS's games/purchases so it's up to you to define the negative impact you apparently believe in.

So give us an example which games GP hurt and which games were available but weren't bought because they didn't fit GP.

This was discussed in the past as well.
Whereas a blockbuster's financials are defined by unit sales, there is no such thing in Gamepass. All games share the revenue volume of subscriptions regardless of their demand.
Adding more and more $100-$400 million titles was unsustainable with a subscription based model. MS couldnt sustain increasing the number of AAA exclusives while promising day 1 releases siumultaneously. Smaller titles were more sustainable. Big game project profitability and Gamepass success weren't fully holding hands together. They were pulling opposite sides of the rope, unless with every huge project they added their subscriptions and paid DLC at least linearly increased with the amount required to break even. An impossible scenario in reality.
Whereas Halo or Gears or Forza may have remained in acceptable quality, the amount of new IPs and exclusive titles were sparse and MS had to expand their releases on PC to be able to sustain Gamepass. Now since that didnt work, they are expanding on competitive platforms, slowly diluting the console brand.

This is why Sony did not agree with their model and are avoiding day 1 releases on Plus Premium/Extra
 
Last edited:
As I stated earlier: What's wrong with MS putting out Gears 6 on GP in 2026 and then putting it out on PS6 in 2028 or 2029 and selling another 5 million copies and generating another $150+ million in revenue to half-fund Gears 7 on GP? Seems smart to me as long as they message it right.
The problem is optics. In todays world every time a game appears on PS6 the usual fan boys will start the speculation on how the next game will be day and date. It will be a never ending cycle of negativity like we are in now.
 
It does make a difference. Most of Sega's history is one of them putting their IP on multiple, sometimes competing, platforms. Altered Beast, Gain Ground, and Golden Axe had ports to PC platforms like Amigia, AtariST and some 8bit computers


None of Amiga/Atari ST or C64/CPC464/ZX Spectrum titles were published or developed by Sega though. Sega only licensed them; other publishers developed and marketed them as example Sega licensed Altered Beast to Activision for the Atari ST version and Activision hired external developers to convert it. As for Golden Axe, VirginMastertronics published it and the conversion was handled by Probe Software. (no ports, no access to arcade source code, graphics assets etc). IIRC most of these conversions were developed by someone playing the arcade version and then recreating the game code and graphics on the computer from scratch. Old school.

It's hardly the same as the SegaPC stuff that Sega did on PC while the Saturn struggled and it's nothing like what Sony and MS are doing on the PC in today's market. That would be like MS and Sony licensing Halo and God of War respectively out to Electronic Arts or Take 2 for PC ...lol 😅
 

Attachments

  • golden axe ST.jpg
    golden axe ST.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 1
  • altered beast ST.jpg
    altered beast ST.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
The problem is optics. In todays world every time a game appears on PS6 the usual fan boys will start the speculation on how the next game will be day and date. It will be a never ending cycle of negativity like we are in now.
Not with consistency and proper messaging.
 
This was discussed in the past as well.
Whereas a blockbuster's financials are defined by unit sales, there is no such thing in Gamepass. All games share the revenue volume of subscriptions regardless of their demand.
Adding more and more $100-$400 million titles was unsustainable with a subscription based model. MS couldnt sustain increasing the number of AAA exclusives while promising day 1 releases siumultaneously. Smaller titles were more sustainable. Big game project profitability and Gamepass success weren't fully holding hands together. They were pulling opposite sides of the rope, unless with every huge project they added their subscriptions and paid DLC at least linearly increased with the amount required to break even. An impossible scenario in reality.
Not really. The verdict is still out on that. MS hasn't consistently delivered 4 or 5 9/10 AAA games on GP every year to drive subs through the roof. With 100 million subs AAA GP is very sustainable.
 
This was discussed in the past as well.
Whereas a blockbuster's financials are defined by unit sales, there is no such thing in Gamepass. All games share the revenue volume of subscriptions regardless of their demand.
Adding more and more $100-$400 million titles was unsustainable with a subscription based model. MS couldnt sustain increasing the number of AAA exclusives while promising day 1 releases siumultaneously. Smaller titles were more sustainable. Big game project profitability and Gamepass success weren't fully holding hands together. They were pulling opposite sides of the rope, unless with every huge project they added their subscriptions and paid DLC at least linearly increased with the amount required to break even. An impossible scenario in reality.

MS apparently didn't share your ideas while expanding GP and investing billions into it. That was the reality for years. That might change but that's not what you're arguing. I don't even think they actually really cared so much about an ironclad GP business plan but only about expanding the subscription service itself to a critical number.

That seems to be business as usual for subscription services like Netflix/Amazon prime/..

Whereas Halo or Gears or Forza may have remained in acceptable quality, the amount of new IPs and exclusive titles were sparse and MS had to expand their releases on PC to be able to sustain Gamepass. Now since that didnt work, they are expanding on competitive platforms, slowly diluting the console brand.

MS has put all their AAA on GP from D1 including the titles from studios they bought until Activision which we don't know the outcome yet.

Any other 3rd AAA games put their titles on GP after their sales windows like what UBI did with a few of their titles or what EA does.

This is what you wrote...
They focused too much into getting the content into Gamepass that made sense financially for the expansion of the subscription service and focused less in expanding the library of exclusives that people wanted to play.

So which imaginary games haven't been added to GP or developed by MS because they didn't fit into GP's assumed business plan?

They bought a shitload of studios which surely qualifies for "expanding the library". Some of the new titles have been exclusive at least for a while.

They might not add all Activision titles to GP but you've arguing here about GP's negative impact on Xbox's portfolio over the years and not in the future.
 
It does make a difference. Most of Sega's history is one of them putting their IP on multiple, sometimes competing, platforms. Altered Beast, Gain Ground, and Golden Axe had ports to PC platforms like Amigia, AtariST and some 8bit computers while Sega was trying to establish the Genesis. But more importantly, they were released for NEC's PC Engine - Their main competitor in the then "next generation" console space in the time before the launch of the Super Nintendo. And Sega made a PC push almost exactly when Saturn was released worldwide. It started with some Genesis and SegaCD games, and quickly transitioned to Saturn releases. It's important to remember that Saturn's first year was pretty competitive against Playstation. They may have even won Japan. This may not have been a desperation move, but more of a return to their multiplatform strategy that they had when they launched Genesis.

It makes even more of a difference if you are trying to equate Sega's multiplatform history with what Xbox is trying now. Xbox's big PC push, came during the Xbox One era, when they didn't really have a foothold in the console space. They've been in 3rd place since Nintendo retired the WiiU and launched the Switch. Sega used a strategy of putting their games on multiple platforms, including their direct competitors (NES and PC Engine), to eventually have a successful console in Genesis.
even Nintendo published games on PC, it's not that they can't do it. Mario Kart: Arcade GP DX is a game for arcade machines that was running on a Namco ES3A arcade machine, which is a PC with Windows Embedded 7.

 
You know, Microsoft and Sony own so damned much of the high end gaming industry now that I'm not sure how viable it is for a non profit making console to even be released, at least one that doesn't have the competitors games on it.

What's left, Ubisoft, Square, Take Two, EA, and that uber mess Embracer which is collapsing anyway? The entire "razors and razor blades" of consoles was to sell consoles, razors, at a loss or nigh loss and make up for it by having an exclusive app store (more or less) of razor blades where you took 30% (ish) of all game sales.

But if you bought the majority of razor blades anyway, why are you selling razors in the first place? Thanks to be way more accessible than consoles in terms of developing for the platform Steam has kinda "won" that whole "sell the razors" thing. Nintendo is successful because it sells consoles at a profit AND the games. Sony could be successful if it convinces Microsoft to drop out entirely and then takes 20-30% margins on all the games MS sells on Playstation.

But Microsoft has bought a lot of major razors, and has never consistently been very good at selling consumer hardware anyway. Their wacky, unfocused "console with other stores on it!" and "we got outcompeted on our own damned platform in making a games store but are somehow going to make a successful one on other's" smells like more Gamepass style Phil Spencer bullshit. But I don't know exactly what strategy besides just being a game publisher would work for MS now.
 
Last edited:
GP is successful. MS doesn't need to do anything radical. Just make games, sell subs, keep up with hardware.

Gamepass is successful but it's struggling to grow beyond the Xbox base. Even if Xbox hardware was doing 360 numbers, we'd still have the same applecart tipping behaviours from MS management.
 
GP is not successful, especially not in the long run. Microsoft firing hundreds or thousands of game developers is a sign that their strategy failed

It's successful in the context of it being a successful service. You can argue profitability, but that should be achievable within the subs they have. As you point out, it's currently a failure relatively to Microsoft ambitions for it. That's a separate thing though.
 
It's successful in the context of it being a successful service. You can argue profitability, but that should be achievable within the subs they have. As you point out, it's currently a failure relatively to Microsoft ambitions for it. That's a separate thing though.
Sorry I misspoke, what I meant was,
Gamepass is one of the most important pillars of Microsoft, it allows millions of gamers, potentially a trillion players, all come together and enjoy the best games of the industry at a very competitive and affordable price. No matter where they come from or what kind of device they own, if they want to play games then Microsoft will make sure it will happen.
 
Back
Top