Xbox leadership and the Xbox brand evaluation *spawn

[Charlietus]

Fault and responsibility might be tow different things, but just because something isn't their fault, doesn't mean that it's their responsibility to know it. They Yen has been on the decline since 2012. PS4 launched in Japan during a recession and those woes haven't gone away. And while that may have gotten worse, Sony did adjust pricing of PS5 to compensate for the declining value of the Yen. The Bungie bungle... I assume we can agree that is their fault. But the fact the the PS5's BOM hasn't decreased like other generations have... Microsoft literally said this was going to happen when talking about why they launched Series S. That the idea that a console being launched at $500 and dropping down to $300 in a few years isn't a thing that can happen, because the cost per transistor has been flat, so even with process shrinks you aren't saving money, because it's the same amount of transistors.

These things might not be Sony's fault, but it's their responsibility to know what is happening. And if your local economy has been in recession 10 years and you haven't accounted for that, or your competitors are making statements about transistor cost that have been widely reported, and you haven't figured it out yet... Well I don't know what to say.

Accounting for those things would mean refusing to compete with Microsoft. Nintendo has that luxury, Sony on the other hand doesn't. They are stuck with sub 15% margins, even if all they're moves were Steve jobs level of perfection.

 

[Seanspeed]

I'm gonna agree with Nesh here and say Xbox going with PC releases, especially on Day 1, was probably a mistake. I'm saying that from their own perspective, as obviously from a consumer perspective, it's a positive move.

PC gamers do like consoles, too. It has been entirely common for PC gamers to have a console(or two) as a secondary platform, largely cuz consoles had traditionally still produced some of the best games that you couldn't play anywhere else. And because plenty still subscribe to the paradigm of 'console in the living room with TV, PC at a desk with monitor' for valid practical reasons.

"But Playstation!" Yea, well I dont fully agree Sony is making the right move for themselves either, and have followed Xbox into a bit of a tar pit here in this regard. But at least keeping their games largely exclusive to Playstation for a good while still ensures those games get associated with Playstation above all else. They're still gaining benefits from the exclusivity status that has been crucial for the console model since the beginning. Exclusives sell consoles. I'd even argue they straight up define consoles.

By getting rid of exclusivity, Xbox heavily diluted their brand and console appeal. Even if you weren't a PC gamer, it still presented the more subtle notion that the 1st party games on Xbox were just a little less special for it. And of course if you were a PC gamer, it basically meant you never had any reason to buy an Xbox console at all.

"Well that's fine, they dont care as long as you are buying their games"

See, that's the other issue. The competition for game sales on PC is a lot tougher than on consoles, especially on a given console platform. If you buy a Playstation or an Xbox, you will likely be more invested in paying attention to and being interested in the 1st party output of your respective console. You bought into this platform and want to gain the rewards for doing so. You will also be far more likely to buy a subscription to PS Plus or Gold/Gamepass or whatever. For PC gamers though, they dont really care. They're gonna be a lot more choosy about what 1st party PS/Xbox games they buy on PC, if they buy any at all. There's none of that feeling of attachment to a brand and platform.

I just think Xbox keep going down a path in which buying their consoles becomes increasingly less appealing, and this makes their games less special and their potential for revenue lower. Even if you consider that irrational, I still think that's how the market tends to see it. 1st party exclusives always had some 'elevated' status and attention simply for being 1st party. But Xbox doesn't have that anymore. And while I'm not arguing it's the cause of all their problems, I do think it's contributed to things to some degree.

 

[Cyan]

I'm gonna agree with Nesh here and say Xbox going with PC releases, especially on Day 1, was probably a mistake. I'm saying that from their own perspective, as obviously from a consumer perspective, it's a positive move.

PC gamers do like consoles, too. It has been entirely common for PC gamers to have a console(or two) as a secondary platform, largely cuz consoles had traditionally still produced some of the best games that you couldn't play anywhere else. And because plenty still subscribe to the paradigm of 'console in the living room with TV, PC at a desk with monitor' for valid practical reasons.

"But Playstation!" Yea, well I dont fully agree Sony is making the right move for themselves either, and have followed Xbox into a bit of a tar pit here in this regard. But at least keeping their games largely exclusive to Playstation for a good while still ensures those games get associated with Playstation above all else. They're still gaining benefits from the exclusivity status that has been crucial for the console model since the beginning. Exclusives sell consoles. I'd even argue they straight up define consoles.

By getting rid of exclusivity, Xbox heavily diluted their brand and console appeal. Even if you weren't a PC gamer, it still presented the more subtle notion that the 1st party games on Xbox were just a little less special for it. And of course if you were a PC gamer, it basically meant you never had any reason to buy an Xbox console at all.

"Well that's fine, they dont care as long as you are buy their games"

See, that's the other issue. The competition for game sales on PC is a lot tougher than on consoles, especially on a given console platform. If you buy a Playstation or an Xbox, you will likely be more invested in paying attention to and being interested in the 1st party output of your respective console. You bought into this platform and want to gain the rewards for doing so. You will also be far more likely to buy a subscription to PS Plus or Gold/Gamepass or whatever. For PC gamers though, they dont really care. They're gonna be a lot more choosy about what 1st party PS/Xbox games they buy on PC, if they buy any at all. There's none of that feeling of attachment to a brand and platform.

I just think Xbox keep going down a path in which buying their consoles becomes increasingly less appealing, and this makes their games less special. Even if you consider that irrational, I still think that's how the market tends to see it. 1st party exclusives always had some 'elevated' status and attention simply for being 1st party. But Xbox doesn't have that anymore. And while I'm not arguing it's the cause of all their problems, I do think it's contributed to things to some degree.

I disagree with Nesh and you. Still, fair points. Fair because from Sony perspective, I'd argue that their sacred cows should only release on Playstation, and then on PC later -or no release at all-. Sega released games that I bought on PC back in the late 90s, like WorldWide Soccer, Sonic 3 and others. Sony also released games on PC like 20 something years ago, it's not new, and they could release surprising titles like Helldivers 2. Did that stop people from buying a Playstation?

But for Xbox....

As long as it never compromises the actual Xbox version, they should keep releasing games on PC. This means more ways to play. With Xbox games you play across all platforms, so the more places you can play, the happier you are.

There's no reason for Xbox not to do day one releases on Windows PCs. The parent company directly benefits from any sales made via Windows.

Sony sure doesn't have this advantage, which is the reason they stagger PC releases. But this strategy is changing as PS5 console sales slow. The will never be day 1 though.

The real anomaly is Nintendo, who refuse any and all interaction with the PC and are actively hostile to any kind of attempts at emulation.

 

[Seanspeed]

I disagree with Nesh and you. Still, fair points. Fair because from Sony perspective, I'd argue that their sacred cows should only release on Playstation, and then on PC later -or no release at all-. Sega released games that I bought on PC back in the late 90s, like WorldWide Soccer, Sonic 3 and others. Sony also released games on PC like 20 something years ago, it's not new, and they could release surprising titles like Helldivers 2. Did that stop people from buying a Playstation?

But for Xbox....

As long as it never compromises the actual Xbox version, they should keep releasing games on PC. This means more ways to play. With Xbox games you play across all platforms, so the more places you can play, the happier you are.

There's no reason for Xbox not to do day one releases on Windows PCs. The parent company directly benefits from any sales made via Windows.

Sony sure doesn't have this advantage, which is the reason they stagger PC releases. But this strategy is changing as PS5 console sales slow. The will never be day 1 though.

The real anomaly is Nintendo, who refuse any and all interaction with the PC and are actively hostile to any kind of attempts at emulation.

I'd like to see them continue to sell games on PC Day 1 as well, but it's not just Windows anymore. You can buy Xbox games on Steam, and most of these will work on Linux/Steam Deck now. A smaller market, sure, but point is - now that they're outside the Windows Store, they're getting none of the previous explicit Windows connection benefits. And they're having to pass off a large chunk of each game sale's revenue to Valve in the process, even for those still playing on Windows.

On PC, they really are just one of any other countless publishers. PC gamers are going to care less about any given 1st party Xbox release, and of those that they do care about, they're more likely to 1) wait and buy it at a heavy discount, 2) buy it on Steam rather than Windows Store, and/or 3) not even play it at all since that's what PC gamers do. lol

 

[Cyan]

Everyone wants it to be a AA world, but really it's a AAA world.

Sony and Nintendo certainly believe that.

Tbh, from a traditional console perspective exclusives and AAAs are essential. Okay.., but we are forgetting the philosophy of each company.

Sony is a japanese console company which has opened its mind to a more global perspective in this world day and age.

Nintendo is a japanese console company with very deep japanese roots and that makes it special in several ways.

Xbox though is an american company that has its roots on PC, with a bad leadership with no persoanlity.

Nintendo games aren't AAAs by any means, nor many Sony games, nor Microsoft games. There are very few AAAs.

Transforming Xbox into a console-only device is a mistake, imho. But Steam loves that.

 

[Nesh]

I disagree with Nesh and you. Still, fair points. Fair because from Sony perspective, I'd argue that their sacred cows should only release on Playstation, and then on PC later -or no release at all-. Sega released games that I bought on PC back in the late 90s, like WorldWide Soccer, Sonic 3 and others. Sony also released games on PC like 20 something years ago, it's not new, and they could release surprising titles like Helldivers 2. Did that stop people from buying a Playstation?

Which Sony games are you referring to and how many were they next to the total library of exclusives?

Playstation was an exclusive powerhouse with a huge library of games people wanted to play, they couldn't play anywhere else. That cannot be questioned. It's what made Playstation what it is.

Usually when a platform owner started releasing it's greatest games on PC, it was a sign of panic, trying to gather as much money as possible from their failing business. Which is exactly what Sega did by releasing many of its greatest Sega Saturn games on PC.

MS on the other hand, made it their strategy, because Gamepass was supposed to become the number 1 subscription platform for gaming. Plus their main strategy was founded under the purpose of supporting their main product which was Windows. And to do that they had to kill off the threatening and growing business of PS in the household. Which was exactly why they envisioned the XBOX in the first place. When they operated like a console business to steal momentum from Sony, the 360 gained a very strong following of console gamers. But that was never MS's main business identity. Hence why they went all Kinect and TV instead of "the best games for the gamers". Gamers felt betrayed.

Since they screwed up, their own panic reaction is getting more games also on Playstation and Switch

 

[Cyan]

Which Sony games are you referring to and how many were they next to the total library of exclusives?

Playstation was an exclusive powerhouse with a huge library of games people wanted to play, they couldn't play anywhere else. That cannot be questioned. It's what made Playstation what it is.

from the top of my mind; Formula 1, Wipeout, Everquest? -can't recall the name exactly but I think that's the name-, this was eons ago. More recently like 10 years ago, Flower released on PC. Most probably there were other which I can't recall.

There is a list of Playstation games here, and I've seen at least one released on Windows, I didn't scroll all the way down yet.

List of Sony Interactive Entertainment video games - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Usually when a platform owner started releasing it's greatest games on PC, it was a sign of panic, trying to gather as much money as possible from their failing business. Which is exactly what Sega did by releasing many of its greatest Sega Saturn games on PC.

the Sega games I am talking about, Worldwide Soccer, Sonic 3 and Cartoon Heroes? -can't recall the name exactly, it was about cartoons, okay graphics-, were released on PC back in 1996-1997 when Sega was still in the market. I really loved to play those games in a window within Windows since I was tired of MS-DOS games running under Windows and having to configure emm-386 memory and all that stuff (autoexec.bat and config.sys).

MS on the other hand, made it their strategy, because Gamepass was supposed to become the number 1 subscription platform for gaming. Plus their main strategy was founded under the purpose of supporting their main product which was Windows. And to do that they had to kill off the threatening and growing business of PS in the household. Which was exactly why they envisioned the XBOX in the first place. When they operated like a console business to steal momentum from Sony, the 360 gained a very strong following of console gamers. But that was never MS's main business identity. Hence why they went all Kinect and TV instead of "the best games for the gamers". Gamers felt betrayed.

agreed with the last part.

What makes you think that they wanted to kill the growing business of PS in the household? Just curious.., it's the first time in my life I hear about something like that. I mean, is there proof of that or is it more like a personal opinion?

 

[see colon]

Usually when a platform owner started releasing it's greatest games on PC, it was a sign of panic, trying to gather as much money as possible from their failing business. Which is exactly what Sega did by releasing many of its greatest Sega Saturn games on PC.

So sega started to panic in the 1980s when they released Buck Rogers for Vic-20?
Sega has, throughout it's entire history, either by themselves or though licensing deals, released games on platforms they did not own. The early 8bit micro computers got plenty of Sega releases, and a decent portion of the Tengen published games for NES were Sega titles. There was a small stretch when they basically only made home games for Genesis, Master System and SegaCD, but you would still get the odd port of a title like After Burner or Altered Beast for Amiga or something. Comix Zone came out for PC maybe 6 months after the genesis release, and by then Sega had a dedicated PC development/publishing arm in SegaPC.

 

[techuse]

Too much reliance on Gamepass and releasing everything on PC day one was a big foul in my book.

It is a similar foul that is deteriorating the Playstation brand.

A lack of compelling software is the only problem with the Xbox in terms of what is consumer facing. Gamepass should probably be reserved for older titles to help maintain software profitability.

 

[Cyan]

So sega started to panic in the 1980s when they released Buck Rogers for Vic-20?
Sega has, throughout it's entire history, either by themselves or though licensing deals, released games on platforms they did not own. The early 8bit micro computers got plenty of Sega releases, and a decent portion of the Tengen published games for NES were Sega titles. There was a small stretch when they basically only made home games for Genesis, Master System and SegaCD, but you would still get the odd port of a title like After Burner or Altered Beast for Amiga or something. Comix Zone came out for PC maybe 6 months after the genesis release, and by then Sega had a dedicated PC development/publishing arm in SegaPC.

Comix Zone! I recalled it as Cartoon Heroes but that's a song from Aqua. I had that game, nice graphics on a window, which although small, was pixel perfect and looked good to me.

Sega had an incredible talent. We talk about Xbox supporting PC and viceversa, but back then arcade machines from Sega also supported the sales of their home consoles and helped them get money in two totally different platforms, from Golden Axe to F1 games -which Michael Jackson, a Sega lover, who owned a F1 arcade machine by Sega- to Altered Beast, Afterburner etc.

Heck, Sony had the ZN-1 arcade machine hardware, which was a modified PS1 with a little extra memory.

Now PC gaming is feasible and can complement Xbox. Consoles were good for the masses when I started at PC gaming. I was a poor kid I could buy none, but a car ran over me and I lost my spleen, it wasn't my fault and I got the compensation money... I asked my parents if I could buy a PC for me and I gave the rest of the money to my parents, that's how I started on PC in late 1995, but if not I'd be a console gamer or a PC gamer much later, who knows, but PC prices were prohibitive then (my Pentium 100MHz 32MB RAM PC with a Trident GPU 2MB cost 3000€ of today...).

 

[Nisaaru]

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. This meant, not building a reputation and content on the exclusives that retained a strong fanbase on the XBOX identity that the 360 initially relied on, which are heavy duty titles. But attracting consumers that were more attracted on the subscription service value itself. That led to abandoning the focus in making the titles themselves financial successes and trying to make Gamepass work. With smaller titles it was easier to financially manage Gamepass and increase content, while big AAA titles were financially risked to support Gamepass. To make sure Gamepass worked they also expanded it to PC with day 1 releases.

Which MS exclusive titles suffered because of GP and which great titles did MS not get because of GP?

Where is the proof for this theory?

 

[Johnny Awesome]

For the record, I would have been fine with MS sticking to just Xbox and PC, but I'm ok if their games go to other platforms with significant time delays.

 

[Nesh]

Which MS exclusive titles suffered because of GP and which great titles did MS not get because of GP?

Where is the proof for this theory?

Define what you mean by suffer

 

[Nesh]

A lack of compelling software is the only problem with the Xbox in terms of what is consumer facing. Gamepass should probably be reserved for older titles to help maintain software profitability.

That's exactly my point

 

[Nesh]

So sega started to panic in the 1980s when they released Buck Rogers for Vic-20?
Sega has, throughout it's entire history, either by themselves or though licensing deals, released games on platforms they did not own. The early 8bit micro computers got plenty of Sega releases, and a decent portion of the Tengen published games for NES were Sega titles. There was a small stretch when they basically only made home games for Genesis, Master System and SegaCD, but you would still get the odd port of a title like After Burner or Altered Beast for Amiga or something. Comix Zone came out for PC maybe 6 months after the genesis release, and by then Sega had a dedicated PC development/publishing arm in SegaPC.

It doesn't make a difference. In the 80s Sega didn't have a strong foothold in the home console industry in which they were struggling. The Master System was under supported and struggling due to Nintendo's anti competitive binding agreements. Tengen releases were controversial. They bypassed Nintendo's licensing agreement, basically using Nintendo's console to sell their games without Nintendo.

PC releases were sparse during the Genesis era. Most PC ports of these Genesis games were released after the Sega Saturn release and during Sega Saturn's gradual demise.

 

[techuse]

That's exactly my point

I disagree that releasing on PC is a problem.

 

[Nesh]

I disagree that releasing on PC is a problem.

That I didagree

 

[see colon]

It doesn't make a difference. In the 80s Sega didn't have a strong foothold in the home console industry in which they were struggling. The Master System was under supported and struggling due to Nintendo's anti competitive binding agreements. Tengen releases were controversial. They bypassed Nintendo's licensing agreement, basically using Nintendo's console to sell their games without Nintendo.

PC releases were sparse during the Genesis era. Most PC ports of these Genesis games were released after the Sega Saturn release and during Sega Saturn's gradual demise.

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.

 

[Nesh]

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.

I don't think what you mention is much different from what I said. These titles were very sparse and none saw Super Nintendo releases. They were coming from a space where Sega's foothold in the household was not established and it was uncertain. There was no console reputation to sacrifice. The majority of their Sega Genesis remained exclusive during the whole life of the Genesis on the other hand.

Checking PC engine regional releases it further solidifies the argument. The PC engine releases were few and largely unreleased outside of Japan. Japan is where Genesis was not doing well, but the PC engine was outselling it. The complete reverse outside of Japan where PC engine was dying

Genesis games were rarely seen if any on PC before the Sega Saturn. They established a Sega PC decision specifically. The earliest Genesis games that saw PC releases were just 3 in 1995 unless I m missing a few. Everything else started coming in 1996 onwards. Sega Saturn had troubles since the beginning in every region besides Japan, so the worrying signs were there early and desperately needed money. Especially after the 32X. Highly popular Sega Saturn games were seeing releases on PC en masse, during it's mid lifecycle, unlike the Genesis which saw most releases on PC after it was replaced.

So yes, Sega going the PC route was a sign of panic about their dying platform. On the other hand Nintendo stood firmly all these generations releasing only for their platforms. So was largely Sony with a few exceptions.

Now on the case of MS a)we either have to accept they were in panic during the XBOne hence they mismanaged their strategy by going the PC route as if they were a dying platform. An action that diluted their brand further. Or b) it was indeed their vision. Which is highly possible since MS never intended to be a traditional platform console business. They saw XBOX as the Trojan horse and a part of their broad Windows ecosystem.

 

[see colon]

So yes, Sega going the PC route was a sign of panic about their dying platform. On the other hand Nintendo stood firmly all these generations releasing only for their platforms. So was largely Sony with a few exceptions.

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.