Xbox leadership and the Xbox brand evaluation *spawn

If you think Halo and Starfield are anything other than 6/10 to 7/10 scores, I don’t know what to tell you.
Starfield - 83 Metacritic.
Halo Infinite - 87

You don't have an objective argument. I could just as readily say Sony's output has been crap just because I don't like their single-player cinematic focus. Any claim MS's output has been going downhill needs to track the independent ratings and sales of the market rather than be just your opinion.
 
Starfield - 83 Metacritic.
Halo Infinite - 87

You don't have an objective argument. I could just as readily say Sony's output has been crap just because I don't like their single-player cinematic focus. Any claim MS's output has been going downhill needs to track the independent ratings and sales of the market rather than be just your opinion.

Rating/critic systems are somewhat pointless. Depending on where you visit, ratings systems (opinions) can very from small to huge on a particular game and platform. On Steam, Starfield has mixed reviews and sitting around a mid-60s positive score. The same thing applies to The Last of Us on Steam. But yes, console gamers might be more accepting of bugs, lower IQ, and lower or unstable framerates when it comes to reviewing a game, but most often PC gamers tend to be more unforgiven during a game review of such issues.

Regardless of platform, I find the whole rating/critic system to be flawed anyhow, especially when there have been instances of post/review removals based on political and social issues affecting scores. And of course, trying to separate or decide who is review bombing versus a legitimate review.
 
I'd never say they were faultless, but they are infinitely more meaningful to a discussion about subjective output quality than people expressing their own personal feelings as if fact. If the only available data, ratings across the ages, are to be ignored as 'somewhat pointless' then the whole discussion about whether a platform is improving or getting worse is pointless and impossible. It'll just be personal rantings and platform warring.

If people want a real discussion about the fortunes of the XBox platform, there needs to be an acceptable base by which we're measuring it. One is hardware install base - we're all good with that. When it comes to software, a measure needs to be established. The only one we have AFAICS, and the one businesses use, is average ratings via Metacritic et al. Also, these are press reviews rather than users - we can exclude those as too erratic.
 
Appealing to me might not be winning business strategy, but from a financial point of view the Xbox division seems to be doing alright. Spencer can keep his job as far as I'm concerned, which is the most important metric. There's no pony he's promised that I'm sad on missing out on.
Isn't it a winning strategy, though? Xbox is selling what, about half as many consoles as Playstation but generating 75% of the revenue. That's a fiscally more efficient when you consider hardware is usually the lowest markup item with the highest price tag in your product stack.
 
Starfield - 83 Metacritic.
Halo Infinite - 87

You don't have an objective argument. I could just as readily say Sony's output has been crap just because I don't like their single-player cinematic focus. Any claim MS's output has been going downhill needs to track the independent ratings and sales of the market rather than be just your opinion.
They have problem with their saying power/player retention. It wouldn't be an issue if Microsoft can pumps out games faster tho.

Then again 2024 is already very packed...
 
Isn't it a winning strategy, though? Xbox is selling what, about half as many consoles as Playstation but generating 75% of the revenue.
I didn't think XB revenue was available. 🤔 Has MS started revealing that? I'd also say operating profit was more important. $10 billion on $12 billion revenue would be way better business than $0.4 billion profit on $20 billion revenue.
 
They have problem with their saying power/player retention. It wouldn't be an issue if Microsoft can pumps out games faster tho.
Wouldn't releasing mare games faster compound the issue of player retention?
Also didn't Halo just hit 30 unique players and have a concurrent player count of about 18k? According to steam charts that about what Skyrim SE and Witcher 3 average Hell, It Takes 2, a multiplayer only game is in that range as well.

I didn't think XB revenue was available. 🤔 Has MS started revealing that? I'd also say operating profit was more important. $10 billion on $12 billion revenue would be way better business than $0.4 billion profit on $20 billion revenue.
The numbers I read were from a Windows Central article. Looks like the source of the data from the charts is Newzoo, a gaming analyst company.
We do know that profit is up based on the most recent financial earnings conference call
And in Gaming, revenue increased 9% and 8% in constant currency, ahead of expectations driven by better-than-expected subscriber growth in Xbox Game Pass as well as first-party content, primarily due to the Starfield launch. Xbox content and services revenue increased 13% and 12% in constant currency and Xbox hardware revenue declined 7% and 8% in constant currency.

Segment gross margin dollars increased 13% and 12% in constant currency and gross margin percentage increased roughly 5 points year-over-year driven primarily by sales mix shift to higher margin businesses. Operating

expenses declined 1% and operating income increased 23% and 22% in constant currency.
 
Earning report profit changes are relative to themselves and not comparative with other companies. Do we have an actual figure to compare to Sony? Where did Newzoo get its number from? I thought MS only reported things like GP MAU and subs and stuff. The press release seems to make no mention of gaming division's turnover.

Reliable figures on revenue would help show the success/failure of the leadership.
 
Earning report profit changes are relative to themselves and not comparative with other companies. Do we have an actual figure to compare to Sony? Where did Newzoo get its number from? I thought MS only reported things like GP MAU and subs and stuff. The press release seems to make no mention of gaming division's turnover.

Reliable figures on revenue would help show the success/failure of the leadership.
I haven’t verified this one; but it has several data points by July.

 
Wouldn't releasing mare games faster compound the issue of player retention?
Also didn't Halo just hit 30 unique players and have a concurrent player count of about 18k? According to steam charts that about what Skyrim SE and Witcher 3 average Hell, It Takes 2, a multiplayer only game is in that range as well.


The numbers I read were from a Windows Central article. Looks like the source of the data from the charts is Newzoo, a gaming analyst company.
We do know that profit is up based on the most recent financial earnings conference call

Seems halo infinite is peak and bust cycle, with very strong drop off from launch, and now not even on the top 100.


Interedting that left 4 dead 2 is still very popular. No wonder last time I played it, it still quite fast in the matchmaking process.

Starfield also keeps trending down https://steamdb.info/app/1716740/charts/

Although once the mods are filling up, it'll probably trending up again.

The player counts itself is still large tho
 

Seems halo infinite is peak and bust cycle, with very strong drop off from launch, and now not even on the top 100.


Interedting that left 4 dead 2 is still very popular. No wonder last time I played it, it still quite fast in the matchmaking process.

Starfield also keeps trending down https://steamdb.info/app/1716740/charts/

Although once the mods are filling up, it'll probably trending up again.

The player counts itself is still large tho
All games do this. With the exception of a few live service games.
 
Sorry to say it but your requirements aren't the requirements for a lot of Xbox users.

To me my Xbox is about experiencing AAA multi platform titles the best way on a console on a large TV with an Xbox Elite controller. Getting good exclusives would be nice but after Halo became irrelevant it's not a deciding factor anymore.

There are far more AAA games out there than you can reasonably play especially if you're hooked on time wasters like Destiny, Assassin Creeds, Multiplayers, RPGs anyway. How many games can you actually really play?

If you're hunting for another AAA experience outside your PC setup because you might feel you miss out I wonder how much you actually really experience the games you already have access to.

My personal backlog of unplayed AAA games is huge and could fill years...
I'm glad that it's working for you and you're enjoying your experience. Unfortunately, it's not working for most consumers and they're picking other consoles. Most people purchase one console, maybe 2 and they're picking PS5 and Nintendo switch most of the time. It's just an undeniable fact. Of the AAA games that are released, the best come from Sony and Nintendo. 3rd party AAA are mostly time wasters like you said and are not worth playing. Barring rare exceptions like Rockstar, your multiplayer FPS, and Sports games, the rest is just unremarkable. This is especially true for Ubisoft games.

My Xbox journey has been a positive one for the last 5 years, and that reflects on how I view Spencer and his team.

I mostly ducked out of console gaming in the middle of the PS360 era. At that point, my PC was more powerful that any console know to humanity, had all the titles I wanted to play, and had more titles than I could possibly play.

My daughter was gifted a OneS back in '18. We had some fun times playing stuff together and then Gamepass starred to come into it's own. She's getting to play the breath of titles I experienced as a lad (all be it through cheap £1.99 Spectrum cassettes and then Amiga piracy in my case).

Then as a time poor Dad, Xbox's play anywhere/Gamepass strategy really works for me. I love a diet of mostly non AAA games. My Deck is at least 50% an xCloud machine.

Appealing to me might not be winning business strategy, but from a financial point of view the Xbox division seems to be doing alright. Spencer can keep his job as far as I'm concerned, which is the most important metric. There's no pony he's promised that I'm sad on missing out on.
Thats cool that you're daughter is getting to experience a bunch of titles and you guys are getting to play together. I still want Spencer gone though and as someone who really enjoyed the 360 era of Xbox, he's dragging the whole ship down. He's got to go so that Xbox can start growing again.
 
Starfield - 83 Metacritic.
Halo Infinite - 87

You don't have an objective argument. I could just as readily say Sony's output has been crap just because I don't like their single-player cinematic focus. Any claim MS's output has been going downhill needs to track the independent ratings and sales of the market rather than be just your opinion.
Objective argument then quoting metacritic? Yes Metacritic, the bastion of game reviews..... I don't use metacritic for anything other than seeing how user reviews align with meta-critic reviews. That tells me how accurate the meta-reviews are... When you get your game for free from the publisher, you're inclined to be far less critical especially if you want to keep getting the game for free. If we're going to use "objective arguments", I'd trust the opinions of those who actually spent their hard earned money on the game than those who get it for free. 120k plus people determined that the games are 6-7/10 game. If you actually played both games, you'd see it clearly for yourself. That's exactly where I scored them when I played them and it seems that the masses agree.


starfield.png

halo.png

In fact, the devs are so embarrassed by the scores that they've initiated an unprecedented strategy..... Begging for good reviews on steam. The games are bad and everyone knows it.
cringe.png
 
Last edited:
Objective argument then quoting metacritic? Yes Metacritic, the bastion of game reviews..... I don't use metacritic for anything other than seeing how user reviews align with meta-critic reviews. That tells me how accurate the meta-reviews are... When you get your game for free from the publisher, you're inclined to be far less critical especially if you want to keep getting the game for free. If we're going to use "objective arguments", I'd trust the opinions of those who actually spent their hard earned money on the game than those who get it for free. 120k plus people determined that the games are 6-7/10 game. If you actually played both games, you'd see it clearly for yourself. That's exactly where I scored them when I played them and it seems that the masses agree.


View attachment 10108

View attachment 10109

In fact, the devs are so embarrassed by the scores that they've initiated an unprecedented strategy..... Begging for good reviews on steam. The games are bad and everyone knows it.
View attachment 10110

On PC, much of the negative reviews for Starfield (obviously not all) come from its performance on NVidia hardware and lack of DLSS leading to review bombing by disgruntled NV users (most PC gamers). If you take a look at the Steam review graph.

1701190466957.png

Notice how positive reviews have gone up much more than negative reviews recently. Oh look at that massive increase in positive Starfield reviews once the official DLSS patch is released (Nov. 20th).

Most PC players weren't unhappy with Starfield as a game, they were unhappy with Starfield not playing well on their NV GPU.

Regards,
SB
 
On PC, much of the negative reviews for Starfield (obviously not all) come from its performance on NVidia hardware and lack of DLSS leading to review bombing by disgruntled NV users (most PC gamers). If you take a look at the Steam review graph.

View attachment 10111

Notice how positive reviews have gone up much more than negative reviews recently. Oh look at that massive increase in positive Starfield reviews once the official DLSS patch is released (Nov. 20th).
I wonder why there more negative reviews in November when that is when the beta patch was freely available that improved performance.
 
On PC, much of the negative reviews for Starfield (obviously not all) come from its performance on NVidia hardware and lack of DLSS leading to review bombing by disgruntled NV users (most PC gamers). If you take a look at the Steam review graph.

View attachment 10111

Notice how positive reviews have gone up much more than negative reviews recently. Oh look at that massive increase in positive Starfield reviews once the official DLSS patch is released (Nov. 20th).

Most PC players weren't unhappy with Starfield as a game, they were unhappy with Starfield not playing well on their NV GPU.

Regards,
SB
No, i don't really think that most of the negative reviews are about performance. DLSS was available via mods shortly after release. You're merely speculating with no strong evidence to support that hypothesis. Regardless, the game still remains as the lowest rated Bethesda games. This is 3 consecutive misses in a row. Fallout 4 was a step back, Fallout 76 was a complete miss and this is yet another one. It's simply not a good game. In a rating scale that only really exists from 8-10, a 6 is basically unacceptable.
 
I wonder why there more negative reviews in November when that is when the beta patch was freely available that improved performance.

I can only speak for myself, but Starfield just didn't live up to my expectations based on earlier media coverage and it's hype machine known as Todd Howard. IMHO, even in its current alpha state, Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are just better overall when it comes to space and planetary exploration.
 
I'm glad that it's working for you and you're enjoying your experience. Unfortunately, it's not working for most consumers and they're picking other consoles. Most people purchase one console, maybe 2 and they're picking PS5 and Nintendo switch most of the time. It's just an undeniable fact.
This all depends on how you define success, assuming that's what you mean when you say "it's working" or "not working". Is it a success if you make more money than your market competitors? If so, Microsoft, with the inclusion of ABK, would be more successful in that metric. Is it selling more hardware? If that's the case then Nintendo or Sony are winning, depending on how you classify them as competitors.

One thing I'd like to add to the conversation about Mattrick and Spencer, is that regardless of what the opinion of Mattrick were at the time, his vision for what Xbox One could be are being realized throughout the industry. Many games have forced online check ins. And physical releases are beginning to be seen as not necessary by some publishers and retailers. Media consumption from set top boxes via apps like Netflix, Disney Plus, Hulu (TVTVTV) and the like is commonplace, perhaps more common than traditional TV.. The Kinect stuff sort of worked it's way into other devices. Voice controls come standard with many smart TVs now, and Nintendo has continued to support motion controls and using the Joycon's sensors for everything from tracking movement with Labo devices to tracking heartrate with Ringfit. What Mattrick, or more accurately his team, got wrong was the messaging. They weren't able to convey to the public why any of their ideas were good, and somehow managed to help the public remember all of the downsides of these ideas. Also, how's this for a headline:

US kids want games subscriptions and virtual currency more than games this Christmas

ESA survey showed only 22% of US children surveyed want physical games for the holidays
The video game market is changing and I wonder if historical precedent for what it means to win a console generation is even going to matter anymore.

Regardless, the game still remains as the lowest rated Bethesda games.
That fact that Starfield has a lower average review score than The Elder Scrolls Redguard is proof that video game reviews are meritless beyond human comprehension. I'm only sort of being hyperbolic with this statement. I also find it somewhat funny that many people are complaining that Starfield isn't enough like older Bethesda games, when the reason I stopped playing it is because it's too much like a Bethesda game. I didn't find it bad, only uninspired in the same way I've found much of their output since and including Skyrim.
 
Back
Top