Xbox : What should MS do next? *spawn

[dobwal]

Does that mean the 360 sold more or less in its first year globally compared to the Xbox One? Maybe I'm being dim, but that just talks about 360 sales being down for a quarter?

11.6 million shipped was in the link. Its not obvious as it took me more than a casual look to find it.

I guess that there is some natural assumption that XB1 sales in europe is heavily dragging down its overall numbers. But it seems to be relatively hard to gauge how much impact continental europe is having on the xbox one versus 360 when it comes to overall sales as it took almost 5.5 years for the 360 to sell 14 million consoles into EMEA (well at least according to gamestop).

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33842/GameStop_Details_Europe_US_Installed_Base_For_Consoles.php

Total shipments for the 360 at the time was around 55 million. Based on some assumptions (UK making up probably 35-45% of that EMEA ship figure), it doesn't seem like the 360 was a relatively hot item in continental Europe either.

 

[iroboto]

as we predicted would happen.
@DSoup you asked a long time ago why MS is still in gaming, I think this article touches on it closer to the end.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/10/91...ction-between-xbox-pc-gamescom-interview-2015

 

[east of eastside]

2016: Xbox One Slim (will beat Slim PS4 to market by at least a quarter)
2017: all-digital Xbox One
2018: new Xbox console

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Articles like these don't answer my question. When you look at Sony's financial reports you fully understand the relevance of gaming to the company because the finances are transparent.

The question over whether Microsoft is capable of delivering credible gaming platforms is not in doubt, it's the degree of profitability that has hovered over the Xbox ever since it was unveiled. Microsoft have a long history of trumpeting their financial successes (like profits from licensing patents to Android manufacturers) but Xbox, nada.

The biggest gaming platform is iOS and Apple's contribution to that is their platform. You'll never see Apple making games and Microsoft could retreat to that position. Windows and DirectX. Fuck it, license DirectX, Microsoft. You'll make money and make a fair few OSX and Linux users happy. Il we live in a world where you need to give people what they want in the form they want so just saying "buy Windows" isn't the answer. DirectX is a desirable piece of technology but the baggage (the rest of Windows) is offputing for many. Windows is a declining platform. Microsoft will work it out sooner or later.

Right now they're throwing a lot of money at gaming through Xbox but there's no evidence it's producing commensurate profits. And speculation like this will never disappear until Microsoft pony up some money math.

 

[Nesh]

Right now they're throwing a lot of money at gaming through Xbox but there's no evidence it's producing commensurate profits. And speculation like this will never disappear until Microsoft pony up some money math.

I didnt read the article but I think MS sees the XB as a gateway to their other services. This is why they are trying to integrate everything. It does MS branding and we slowly see Windows and affiliated services larking in there. It is also a gateway for the living room. They want to own that. They want to build an ecosystem that covers everything digital. Some of their products/services may not offer profit per se but they can help other product/services profit or maintain their market share

 

[mosen]

Articles like these don't answer my question. When you look at Sony's financial reports you fully understand the relevance of gaming to the company because the finances are transparent.

The question over whether Microsoft is capable of delivering credible gaming platforms is not in doubt, it's the degree of profitability that has hovered over the Xbox ever since it was unveiled. Microsoft have a long history of trumpeting their financial successes (like profits from licensing patents to Android manufacturers) but Xbox, nada.

The biggest gaming platform is iOS and Apple's contribution to that is their platform. You'll never see Apple making games and Microsoft could retreat to that position. Windows and DirectX. Fuck it, license DirectX, Microsoft. You'll make money and make a fair few OSX and Linux users happy. Il we live in a world where you need to give people what they want in the form they want so just saying "buy Windows" isn't the answer. DirectX is a desirable piece of technology but the baggage (the rest of Windows) is offputing for many. Windows is a declining platform. Microsoft will work it out sooner or later.

Right now they're throwing a lot of money at gaming through Xbox but there's no evidence it's producing commensurate profits. And speculation like this will never disappear until Microsoft pony up some money math.

Microsoft's FY15 Q4 report is pretty informative:

1. Xbox Platform revenue increased $86 million or 10%, driven by higher volumes of consoles sold, offset in part by lower prices of Xbox Ones sold. We sold 1.4 million consoles in the fourth quarter compared to 1.1 million consoles during the prior year.
The overall revenue of "Xbox HW" in FY15 Q4 = $946 million
2. Xbox Live transactions revenue increased $205 million or 58%, reflecting increased users and revenue per user.
The overall revenue of "Xbox Live transactions" in FY15 Q4 = $558 million
3. First-party video games revenue increased $63 million or 62%. We acquired the Minecraft gaming franchise in November 2014.
The overall revenue of "first-party video games" in FY15 Q4= $164 million

http://www.microsoft.com/investor/E...s/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY15/Q4/default.aspx

This means that Microsoft revenue from Xbox in FY15 Q4 was at least $1,668+ million (without considering 3rd-party software revenue), which is 27% higher than FY14 Q4 Xbox revenue and is 70% of Sony's Game & Network Services segment revenue ($2,365 million).

 

[iroboto]

The question over whether Microsoft is capable of delivering credible gaming platforms is not in doubt, it's the degree of profitability that has hovered over the Xbox ever since it was unveiled. Microsoft have a long history of trumpeting their financial successes (like profits from licensing patents to Android manufacturers) but Xbox, nada.

In particular it may have nothing to do with money. From the article:

"There have been times in our past where Microsoft has lost our way with PC gaming," Spencer said. He also characterized gaming as a "critical" part of Windows 10's success

The way Spencer sees it, the convergence is an acknowledgement that gaming — not Xbox gaming, not Windows gaming, but gaming as its own entity — has become incredibly important for platforms that span the pocket and the desktop.

"Obviously, last summer we went through the acquisition of Minecraft, and it was a really good dialogue with Satya and the board of Microsoft around 'What can games mean for Windows itself? Why is this a critical category for Microsoft to be in?' When you look at the device ecosystems out there, you realize if any of these devices are going to work, games are one of the primary forms of applications people are going to play.

But Microsoft is changing, and Xbox seems to be having an influence on the company. Spencer, for example, has a literal seat at the table when Microsoft discusses the future of Windows.

"So when we're partnering in these opportunities, it's not only that there's a mentality, there's also people who are having a broader influence," he said. "And even my ability to sit at the Windows leadership table and have a discussion about gaming at Microsoft and not just about gaming on one piece of hardware, it has an impact."

And if gaming has an impact, then it only makes sense for Microsoft to involve the division that knows the most about games. As Spencer said, "you look at gaming and say 'OK, if this Windows thing and devices in consumer space are going to work, games have to be a vibrant part of the equation,' absolutely."

My understanding from reading those sections is that MS recognizes that gaming has been a pillar to their OS success at least a major pillar in the consumer space. What separates Windows from OS X and Linux? Gaming. It's the only suitable platform in terms of support. So from what I'm reading, they understand that all their devices and platforms need to be built with this pillar in mind. Their peripherals will all be supported by Windows 10 going forward forever (if this is the last OS they truly make), but that also means their peripherals should be compatible with all Windows 10 devices. And we see this integration happening.

Looking at it from a profit perspective misses out on the larger aspect that gaming likely has a large part as to why people have never left Windows in the consumer space. I'll flip your own suggestion on you: Why license out DirectX, when it's easier to license out Windows 10? Dreamcast may have been the first, but it may not be the last.

The fight over the living room space (for MS) may well be over. I don't think they care anymore what you buy, as long as you buy from them. If all their devices and software are going to integrate and become 1 large ecosystem, then they're happy with that. But if they want to stay in the consumer space and not get pushed out by their competitors, then they need to dominate the one segment their competitors fail at: gaming.

If gaming was truly this separate entity that no longer plays a major role at MS, why bother inviting head of Xbox to Windows meetings? To me, I think they have it right. Gaming needs to be in every facet of what they do.

How has Apple really held onto the mobile market? Could it be through it's stronghold of games? IIRC when iPhones were first announced, Steve Jobs wanted nothing to do with showing games at the reveal conferences, but now strong gaming prowess is shown at every event. I don't know how much Apple gets from IOS games, but it's certainly a factor when it comes to platform selection to some people.

 

[liolio]

2016: Xbox One Slim (will beat Slim PS4 to market by at least a quarter)
2017: all-digital Xbox One
2018: new Xbox console

One may wonder if it is even worth it, by that time off the shelves APU should deliver way better performances relatively to their die size than now as memory technologies should alleviates a lot of what set the Xbox one apart from say a Kaveri APU.
Gaming is important and can be an important mean for MSFT to make its store successful. The Xbox One is already a ~ PC what the point developing another one down the line?
MSFT made a mistake though with Directx 12 they should have abstract the CPU too making gaming possible on ARM based devices

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Windows on mobile needs x64?

 

[iroboto]

Windows on mobile needs x64?

It might be headed there already, they were very particular about not announcing the specs of the Windows Phone for the Continuum demo. Likely it is still ARM, but I'm not really sure. They just released W10 for IoT (Raspberry Pi 2 etc, and those are running ARM), we'll know soon enough about mobile by end of year.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Does the Windows store require x64 and ARM builds then for cross device compatibility?

 

[iroboto]

Does the Windows store require x64 and ARM builds then for cross device compatibility?

The answer is: Depends.
For native Universal apps, you can make a small tag that looks for any device and or feature set, do this or that.
Similar to DX levels. In this case, as long as the device supports it, it'll run that code.
The Windows 10 store is from my understanding all Universal, and you can package binaries in the Universal platform as well, but it would operate slower than a real binary, since UWP is running in it's own container.

 

[Jay]

The next windows phones will be arm, Continuum only needs concurrent dual display support which the snapdragons 808 upwards support from what I remember (could be 805). These are probably 64bit chips for what its worth.
Intel phone may come next year though.

Windows store compiles the Universal Application Platform (UAP) apps on the servers.
You can wrap standard w32 apps so they can be uploaded to the store, but I don't believe these are compiled on the servers.
I think your confusing UAP and other types of app's that can be in the store.
UAP are basically apps that can run on arm, x32, x64, etc. Basically across all of MS win10 devices, if the developer wants it too.

 

[iroboto]

The next windows phones will be arm, Continuum only needs concurrent dual display support which the snapdragons 808 upwards support from what I remember (could be 805). These are probably 64bit chips for what its worth.
Intel phone may come next year though.

Windows store compiles the Universal Application Platform (UAP) apps on the servers.
You can wrap standard w32 apps so they can be uploaded to the store, but I don't believe these are compiled on the servers.
I think your confusing UAP and other types of app's that can be in the store.
UAP are basically apps that can run on arm, x32, x64, etc. Basically across all of MS win10 devices, if the developer wants it too.

You might be right. I know there was a rebranding, but UAP and UWP, however the store may not be all UAP/UWP, but I thought it was going to be that way - at least that's what I think I heard when I was at Build.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The next windows phones will be arm, Continuum only needs concurrent dual display support which the snapdragons 808 upwards support from what I remember (could be 805). These are probably 64bit chips for what its worth.
Intel phone may come next year though.

Windows store compiles the Universal Application Platform (UAP) apps on the servers.
You can wrap standard w32 apps so they can be uploaded to the store, but I don't believe these are compiled on the servers.
I think your confusing UAP and other types of app's that can be in the store.
UAP are basically apps that can run on arm, x32, x64, etc. Basically across all of MS win10 devices, if the developer wants it too.

So as an indie, how are Windows devices targeted? DO you build a game on Windows and release it as a UAP and it gets magically turned into something that runs on phones (at notable overhead?)? Or do you/can you create x86 and ARM flavours, list the game on the Windows store and have the device download the appropriate version?

Is it transparent to the users what the difference is, if any? And is everything on the store going to run on your devices no matter what? I'm assuming if I buy an art app for PC, it'll also run on Windows tablet, but might that not be the case?

 

[Jay]

It will be transparent to the user, I believe if your going through the store on a particular device you only see apps that are applicable to your device.

It will download the correct version automatically.
I think the store will probably end up with 4 different types of apps. UAP, win32, and the bridges ( ios, android, web wrapped). But this is transparent to the user. To the user there will be little difference as they can also access notifications, live tiles, etc with a little work from the developer.

Only the UAP are actually universal and compiled on the servers to the native platform, They will be written in things like xaml and .net languages.
The advantage of UAP is the fact that it will run on all win10 devices and reformat/scale to the device in question, and make proper use of the input available. phones, pc, xbox, hollowlens, etc. This is what they want people to actually use, and the "develop UAP and you'll have access to 3billion devices", or whatever their marketing push is.

If you want an app to work on phones and desktop and you've written it in w32 the developer will have to port it themselves.

Hopefully that makes sense, writing in a rush, and would need to go back and verify any other particular details.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Microsoft's FY15 Q4 report is pretty informative:

1. Xbox Platform revenue increased $86 million or 10%, driven by higher volumes of consoles sold, offset in part by lower prices of Xbox Ones sold.

Revenue is not informative at all because there is no indication of profit or loss. I could setup a business tomorrow selling $10 bills for $1 and my revenue would be through the roof. I'd also be bankrupt.

Revenue is not profit and is meaningless. They may as measure Xbox performance on the number of salads were consumed in the canteen that quarter.

The question of Xbox's profitability continues to be unanswered by Microsoft. This itself speaks volumes. You shout and celebrate good numbers, conceal others.

 

[iroboto]

It will be transparent to the user, I believe if your going through the store on a particular device you only see apps that are applicable to your device.

It will download the correct version automatically.
I think the store will probably end up with 4 different types of apps. UAP, win32, and the bridges ( ios, android, web wrapped). But this is transparent to the user. To the user there will be little difference as they can also access notifications, live tiles, etc with a little work from the developer.

Only the UAP are actually universal and compiled on the servers to the native platform, They will be written in things like xaml and .net languages.
The advantage of UAP is the fact that it will run on all win10 devices and reformat/scale to the device in question, and make proper use of the input available. phones, pc, xbox, hollowlens, etc. This is what they want people to actually use, and the "develop UAP and you'll have access to 3billion devices", or whatever their marketing push is.

If you want an app to work on phones and desktop and you've written it in w32 the developer will have to port it themselves.

Hopefully that makes sense, writing in a rush, and would need to go back and verify any other particular details.

This sounds right to me Jay, @Shifty Geezer in your scenario, I was at the UWP gaming session at Build, Unity can be deployed as a UAP. I'll look up the session and try to link it here at a later time.

here: https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2015/2-648
relevant to you starts at 29 minutes.

 

[dobwal]

2018: new Xbox console

Probably not. Given how long the last gen was able to last, I imagine Sony and MS will try to stretch out this gen as far as they can.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

In particular it may have nothing to do with money. From the article:

I read the article. I assume we agree that the objective measure of success in the commercial world is profit, right? And there are fundamentally two approaches; 1) your create/evolve/grow a market which is profitable from the outset (1999+ Apple, classic and modern Sony) or 2) you invest in creating a market around a brand with a strategy from monetising that market later (Google).

My understanding from reading those sections is that MS recognizes that gaming has been a pillar to their OS success at least a major pillar in the consumer space.

I don't know how Microsoft discern consumer customers from enterprise customers - the distinct versions of Windows really are of no help but I think they are off base here. Gaming is important to gamers but a few million games sold on their desktop platform is small than a rounding error in terms of the number of their enterprise customers. And while I'm sure Microsoft ar keen to told on to what consumer space they still own, it's enterprise that drives their profits.

What separates Windows from OS X and Linux? Gaming. It's the only suitable platform in terms of support.

I need to switch to Windows to game less and less on Mac and before decrying the other platforms, let's see where Apple goes with Metal. EPIC have support for since Unreal Engine 4.3 and Unity are working to bring support there. I didn't buy a Mac for gaming and never expected to be able to lose Windows although if you're willing to give up a little performance most games will run under.

But I disagree, gaming is not what separates OS X and Linux. Many of the people on non-Windows operating systems also want play games with decent performance but have been limited to OpenGL, mimicking DirectX with WINE or just virtualising or booting Windows where a native alternative wasn't an option. I don't want to have to reboot to play a game and I don't want to run Windows, I like UNIX thanks.

So from what I'm reading, they understand that all their devices and platforms need to be built with this pillar in mind.

I think Microsoft will be OK as long as their OS lets people access Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Usage of web services vastly dwarfs games but sure, if your market is slowly eroding (Windows) you want to minimise the erosion as much as possible.

Looking at it from a profit perspective misses out on the larger aspect that gaming likely has a large part as to why people have never left Windows in the consumer space. I'll flip your own suggestion on you: Why license out DirectX, when it's easier to license out Windows 10? Dreamcast may have been the first, but it may not be the last.

Your first statement is huge leap. The Windows gaming market isn't big relative to the Windows market at large or social media services - those are volume uses and uses you don't need Windows for.

As for why licensing Windows when it's "easier" to licence Windows? Judging by the piracy levels of Windows I don't think it's easier to licence Windows plus, as I mentioned above, I don't want to have to reboot another OS to play a game. There is only one reason I boot to Windows: DirectX. Even games that run a little better on Windows like World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, Minecraft, XCom, Wasteland 2 (actually a whole bunch of indie games) I'm not rebooting for.

Having suggested Microsoft licensing DirectX to others I think it's probably already too late for Mac as Metal rolls out in OS X El Capitan along with direct support in some important engines and you know more will follow. This will make it easier to get good performance out of a Mac as demonstrated by Unreal's presentation at WWDC in June.

The fight over the living room space (for MS) may well be over.

I don't think the fight even started. Microsoft, Sony and Google were so busy with initiatives to be the "one device" connected to people's dumb TVs they overlooked user's preference to use their existing mobile devices alongside their existing dumb TVs. I ignored Google's many 'TV' products and bought a ChromeCast - job done!

If gaming was truly this separate entity that no longer plays a major role at MS, why bother inviting head of Xbox to Windows meetings? To me, I think they have it right. Gaming needs to be in every facet of what they do.

This has drifted quote far from my question, which still remains, is gaming profitable for Microsoft. The obviously follow up questions are, if not, will it every be and therefore is it worth pursuing at the kind of costs associated with being a platform holder with the kind of finances that Microsoft never want to be transparent about?

How has Apple really held onto the mobile market?

Desirable and competetive products? It's thinks it's as simple as that. Not everything is do with gaming. Apple make products that sell themselves.