Rumour: Microsoft Paid For 'Chip Priority' To Increase Xbox Series X|S Stock

So they said here's load of millions so make sure we get chips before playstation? I don't know if that's a "deal" lol (unless sony get their chips from somewhere different)

I dont get why Sony and Microsoft don't invest on producing their own factories to make their own chips or Sony and Microsoft going to different chip makers instead of the same one.

Until this chip situation gets sorted and both consoles get a steady supply and available normally in shops then don't expect dedicated new gen games any time soon especially from third parties

Sony seem to still be suffering now.
Not a single PS5 stock drop in the UK for 13 days running. That’s a new record by the way.
If it goes to the weekend and next Monday that will be about 18 days.

@Dezzy70 obviously Microsoft and Sony knew about chip shortages before they released their new consoles, should of delayed the new gen until things got better, especially with all third party games still releasing on last gen consoles.

@UltimateOtaku91 supply is coming from the same factories. They're ordering parts, nothing unusual. "Chip priority" seems a little farfetched tbh. Sounds more like MS just decided to pay far in advance rather than keeping a budget based on income.

a business decision banking on them selling.

Its possible that MS has a deal in place - but the 'extra' consoles could also be down to the fact that MS have upgraded their servers with Series X chips and are now able to use those to make 'more' consoles now too...

@UltimateOtaku91 making foundries costs hundreds of billions i believe so that's clearly not an option. Making a factory for just your chips isn't cost effective and you would be a tiny player and be low on the supply chain totem pole. Paying a premium to get product is common in the industry so nothing new here. Great strategy on their part as they also used a ton of chips for their xcloud servers so im wondering just how much more they are actually getting, and if they have the servers done how much more inventory will they be pushing out now?

Edit: Should have read all the comments first as all this was already said lol

I find it easy to believe MS would do this. But I guess if you have the money, why not?

@themightyant wow didn't realise that's how much it would cost to build, so definitely not worth the returns if they invested in their own unless they started selling their chips to other companies as well. Surely there's more than one chip maker out there or have they both gone for the "cheapest" available place

Sony fan and always will be, but that said god do I hope Sony gets put in its place for the changeable faceplates, i feel like the PS4 sucess over Xbox has lead to a greedy approach for the ps5, it’s sheer size along leads me to believe it’s made room for a slim model.

@UltimateOtaku91
Not sure if they should have delayed.
The way we are going even if they had waited until this year the chip shortages are still there.
It’s like the car industry they are still releasing new car models etc but the wait times are lot longer for a new car now.
The tv market is releasing all new TVs this year like last year etc.
I think it’s best to move on and forward and just cope with delays and long delivery times.
Unfortunately in the electronics market it has been almost the norm now.

It's called Expedite Fees and anyone in the electronics manufacturing business can do it. In my job we do it all the time because if you don't, you have lead times in excess of a year.

Sony makes timed exclusive deals for games and it seems MS makes timed exclusive deals for chip production

@Mince
Sony needs putting in its place for many things with the PS5 console design and consumer friendliness etc.
Of course though they get the games out exclusive to PlayStation and have very good following from the PS4 days.
I do sense a bit of their arrogance coming across from their tv business, that has seen them slip for first years ago to third or lower, also first and second to third is a big sales gap.
As a company I can’t stand Sony but their games and studios are top notch. They managed to get something right there.

That’s business.

Hang on I thought Microsoft did not care about console sales and it’s all about game pass sales, so why pay extra money for chip priorities.

Now will you agree with if true, Microsoft do care a lot about console sales and game pass is actually a another way of enticing people to buy an Xbox console. It always has been.

Ah yes.

Love how humans are so self aware.

Clearly Sony is the only greedy one that needs to be put in place but we forget things like $120 xbox live price attempt, gears 5 and halo infinite mtx. It seems people turn a blind eye when you aren't charged $70 when it comes to high price mtx. Did we forget freetoplay required live before?

Anyways, Xbox needs to do a showcase with a lot of gameplay for their upcoming games. That's the only way Sony will be put in place. I don't think $70 price tags will change since third party are joining (xbox will eventually join too). Besides $70, I don't see what type of greediness people want Sony to change.

@UltimateOtaku91 There are already next gen only games.

It's just that the jump because of diminished returns from last gen to this one isn't that big.
PS6 will mostly have cross gen games. We're hitting a gaming peak.

@themightyant So far Series sales are very very close to PS5 sales. That chip shortage might the best thing that happened to them.

I was expecting PS5 to be 2-3:1 as of today.

With Bethesda, I knew 2:1 at the end of the gen wasn't going to happen. With Activision I am now 100% PS5 won't dominate like ps4.

@Dezzy70 How does having Game Pass on PC, phones, and trying to get it on Switch and PS, sell more xbox consoles?

I don't know why people come back to 'selling the most consoles' as if selling consoles hasn't always been a means to an end and not the end itself. The end is to provide software. Always has been.

@UltimateOtaku91 maybe not 3rd party but we’re already getting dedicated current gen games on Xbox aren’t we? I mean that’s one of the selling points of the cloud streaming they’re pushing…they get to take advantage of the hardware whilst messaging Xbox one players don’t get left behind.

Third party I think we’ve only seen The medium so far. First flight sim. But I’m pretty sure the biggest release of the year starfield is only current gen…and if that’s the case it’s probably a safe bet everything that follows from Microsoft is current gen only and streaming for last gen consoles

@Rural-Bandit
Thank you, yes I did call it out yesterday.
Sony definitely having supply issues.

@Richnj
I think you have missed my point.
A lot on here say Microsoft don’t care about console sales just game pass sales.
This article proves that Microsoft do care about console sales very much and always have done.

@Bleachedsmiles so far I don't believe xbox have any dedicated new gen games and most of Sony's are on last gen as well. I can see that to continue whilst chip shortages remain

@Dezzy70 nah you’ve got it the wrong way round..console sales are another way of enticing people to gamepass subs. The subscription model is their priority over hardware…that’s very clear to see. You wouldn’t be getting day 1 titles on gamepass if the priority was to sell hardware.

@UltimateOtaku91 well I had already mentioned one in flight sim…which isn’t available on last gen consoles outside of streaming…

@RevGaming

" (xbox will eventually join too). Besides $70, I don't see what type of greediness people want Sony to change."

You seem to be ignoring the gigantic elefant in the room - Xbox players do not have to pay £70 for new releases, If, you have a Game Pass subscription and that is a very big deal.

Sony is not going to change, their hard-core evangelist base will insure that!

Maybe Playstation have a much lower yield with their SOC as compared to Microsoft, because of their very late decision to overclock the thing to look more competitive with the series X.

@MiGke microsofts consoles all the way back to the OG xbox has had a x86 architecture they changed nothing... dont forget every xbox has ran on a version of windows its been either C.E. or what we have now... also dont forget the xbox has always been about using directx which is a x86 tool... only sony and Ninty were using non x86 before the ps4 gen....

Microsoft as a whole make up a far bigger portion of chip usage than Sony. Part of my job involves procurement of server hardware and we are seeing 3-6 month delays because when MS or Amazon start placing orders for expanding their cloud infrastructure your order gets dropped like hot cakes.

The problem isn't contracting to chip specialists, that just makes sense, who would build a CPU assembly line to make chips for one product?

The problem is "globalism" has slowly been devouring any sensible supply chain and yielding it to a single point of failure going on 25 years now. Fortunately the confluence of crises may finally be waking up the world to the obvious stupidity they should have realized 20 years ago, and they're finally pivoting away from from the ridiculous idea. But it'll take years if not decades to undo.

@Sol4ris I just saw that there is no $60 annual price for gold option digitally on xbox store. I won't buy xbox gold if they are pushing me to spend $60 more (which is worse than an extra $10 for game that goes on sale).

Better to pay $70 than $20 for each skin and character. Phil has convinced many people to that norm it seems. Not surprised. When you look at how popular free to play are, people love this norm lol. I don't want last of us factions to be free. Screw the reach. It will end up as a better product if it is a premium one. I do not want to download the game for free, see that every gun is $20. I rather pay $70 and get all of the content day 1. That is just me tho. Quality for less.

It is funny how people think not paying $70 gets the more when that is false.

@RevGaming as for the MTX personally i dont care, been playing Apex legends where skins go for 25$ regularly... reason being as long as their cosmetic theres no reason to buy them unless you really want a to spend real money on something in 4 years most wont even play or use anymore...ive literally only spent 20$ in over 2 years on apex and nothing on fortnite, or paladins(the only other f2p games i play) as for characters cant think of a f2p game that youll need to spend money on characters... even apex allows you to earn characters(never paid for one and have them all unlocked) but i agrree if they start making you pay for characters that have abilities thats a issue but if the character is just a skin essentially no abilities then who cares how much they are charging you dont need to buy it....

@Blessed_Koz Then why are you complaining about $70 when you are spending $25 for skins or one single character?

Yeah. You can get them for free by playing anormal hours of play.

Rather pay $70 and get all of them.

Also note that apex was a barebones game when it came out compared to $60-70 games.
So I prefer to pay $70.

@RevGaming

"It is funny how people think not paying $70 gets the more when that is false."

There is nothing funny in paying £70 for a first party release and end up with one of the most egregiously implemented MTX system in a game. Yes, I'm referring to GT7 and its laughable rewards implementation to encourage real currency purchases, it actually made FP games look reasonably generous in comparison.
But like I have said, Sony need do nor change nothing, since its core base keeps evangelising about any actions it tries to pull, however crap that might be.

@UltimateOtaku91

"So they said here's load of millions so make sure we get chips before playstation? "

Exactly that. Microsoft payed millions to stop manufacturers from producing PS5 chips🤦‍♂️. They signed exclusive deals of up to two years, similar to the gaming deals Sony signs.😂

@Dezzy70 Then I think you misunderstand what people mean when they say "MS don't care about console sales". They mean that MS don't care about selling the most consoles, nor do they care to the same degree that Sony or Nintendo care. Would they prefer it? yes, but they've disconnected their platform from the hardware itself.

So where as in previous generations, it really mattered about selling the most consoles because that directly tied to the health of your platform and sales, MS doesn't care about "selling the most consoles" so long as the xbox platform (whether that be on the consoles, or through PC, phones or some one else's consoles) grows.

I don't think anyone that says that MS don't care about selling consoles, truly believes that they don't want to sell any, because then they'd not sell any consoles at all.

About GP. MS aren't offering GP to get people to buy an xbox. GP itself is a part of the XBox platform, it's growth, on or off an xbox console, is growth for the Xbox platform. If Xbox console sales just completely stopped today, but sales of Xbox games, Game Pass subcriptions went through the roof on PC and other devices, causing profits to soar, MS would be very happy with that situation.

I didn't misunderstand, I just disagree with your assessment of the situation.

Gotta spend money, to make money.

@Richnj

"Then I think you misunderstand what people mean when they say "MS don't care about console sales". They mean that MS don't care about selling the most consoles, nor do they care to the same degree that Sony or Nintendo care. Would they prefer it? yes, but they've disconnected their platform from the hardware itself."

Precisely that. Interestingly and suspiciously, only the Sony hardcore fan(boys) seem to have a comprehension problem with what Phil Spencer meant about hardware sales.

@Sol4ris From paying $70, you get gow, hfw, returnal, demon souls remake, ratchet, hogwarts and the outlier that is gt7, but with free to play, you get fortnite with $20 skins, apex with huge grinds to get any character, rogue company is the same, brawlhalla (you can buy the all legends pack which is cheap but almost nobody does that) is the same etc. You think I haven't played these free to play? You end up paying more than $70 to not even end up with not even 25% of how much content those $70 those games offer. You think companies don't know this? It's why they do this.

I play siege pretty often, and I bought all the season characters that I was missing for $40 or something. Not bad for years of added content. If the game was free to play, that $40 would have been $100 or more than $60. Since they got the $60 from sales, they can afford to sell all the characters for $40.

I rather pay $60-70 and jump that grind because everything is included instead of paying $400 for each thing that would have been included in a $60. You do know those games survive on whales and anyone who enjoys the game and wants to enjoy it more, needs to be a whale or only play that game. This is what I hate services giving games for basically free. Doesn't matter who. PS or XB. I don't like the free to play or it's like free model these games will become.

Anyone who loves Gamepass, must love no life grinds to get anything or love MTX to skip it. It doesn't make sense logically to dislike one and not the other. Games will have to become that under a service.

Don't believe me? Look at mobile gaming. I play 0 mobile games. I don't want Console gaming to become that.

It will also be for azure (xcloud, psnow), remember Microsoft and Sony near enough use the same chip in the console's and in the servers but Sony pay Microsoft to use the server tech.

@Dezzy70

Hang on I thought Microsoft did not care about console sales and it’s all about game pass sales, so why pay extra money for chip priorities.

Even if they didn't care about console sales, they would still need to invest heavily on Chip priorities to keep adding XCloud racks to their data centers.

When people say XBox does not care about sales is they dont care about being behind on the home console market so long they manage to get a total consumer count (home + xcloud) that does keep them in the lead.

They want to be in the lead of total users, or aiming to get there. This means they need to sell consoles and get consumers onto xcloud both. If MS didnt care about selling consoles, the Series S would not exist.

@RevGaming Where does the new GT game and Psychonauts 2 fit in to that?

@RevGaming

"From paying $70, you get gow, hfw, returnal, demon souls remake, ratchet, hogwarts and the outlier that is GT7"

Indeed you can.
But the discourse we are having is because you are trying to justify and defend Sony's game price increase, a choice you are free to make.
Furthermore I did not defend the FP gaming model, you are the one that makes false equivalence between MS releasing their first party games on Game Pass day one and FP games and you should be called out for it. Besides, Gears 5 or Halo Infinite does not have infinite MTX, the campaigns can be fully played without grinding or spending a dime if you bought the game or subscribe to GP, same for Halo Infinite campaign.

"Anyone who loves Gamepass, must love no life grinds to get anything or love MTX to skip it."

Absolute bull crap and evidence of a total lack of objectivity..... PushSquare is your natural habitat, clearly.

@themightyant

Though 2:1 or 3:1 was never likely. Xbox One wasn't too far off 2:1 (approx. 2.3:1) and that was a disaster at launch, whereas MS built a lot of goodwill going into XSX|S it was always going to be closer initially.

And in North America, the XBOne/PS4 was actually ridiculously close. PS4 only had a 15.95% lead. At this point, the PS5 has only a 3.55% lead and its mostly due to having higher stock at launch.

@Tharsman
So you know I was saying Microsoft do care
About consoles sales and have since day one.
As consoles sell game pass memberships as well.

@Dezzy70

Of course MS are not going to be upset if the Xbox Series will turn out to be a selling success. However, the point they are making is that hardware sales will not be the only metric by which success is measured for the Xbox /gaming division. It is an IMPORTANT distinction to make here.
But as ever, some people choose to follow whatever suits their narrative.

@RevGaming Considering I don’t use MTX for any games and use gamepass for a lot of indie and third party games that don’t have them and find them to be a far greater entertainment value than Sony’s latest Oscar bait game with more effort put into wowing the player with graphics and story than making an actual fun game, I’d say you can piss off with that assumption you’re making.

@Sol4ris
Correct I wasn’t getting at Microsoft, just when sales are low some here claim, it is totally irrelevant and it’s only game pass sales that matter.
If you believe that you will believe anything, not that you do of course.

@Dezzy70 Oh please, you’re the guy who was saying Gamepass must not be successful because there were Series X consoles on the shelf in the territory you live. Don’t try and change your tune now, you think only the hardware in your personal area must be an indication of how successful MS is with all of their strategies.

@UltimateOtaku91 well I would assume it’s cheaper and Microsoft tablets are trash’s and slow I doubt they can make a good chip . I do wish sony used nvidia while Xbox used amd just to have better competition and make comparisons worthy

It needs to be said most chips belong to mobile companies. And MS doesn’t just put chips it Xboxes unless I’m imagining the Surface.

@Sakisa
I not changing my tune, I’m saying what I said all along that console sales matter as the more consoles you sell, you stand a chance of selling a game pass subscription.
As others in here when console sales are low, say only game pass sales matter.
If Microsoft paid for chip priorities for series x, then it proves they care about console sales.
I still believe currently game pass is not the mass selling product or console buying product and it’s first party exclusive games and getting the right trendy games on your console or game pass that really matters and creates big Switch and PS4 type sales.
Xbox and game pass just needs those games that’s all.
Look at this year so far zero, but hopefully Starfield by November 2022 and hopefully it’s one of those big selling top end must have games.

@Dezzy70 So you still believe only the kinds of games you like matter, big AAA games which is only a fraction of the kinds of games released, and something I and many others don’t care about, will make or break a product that’s already meeting the expectations and success for Microsoft, and that if Series X consoles are still on the shelf where you live that they’re failing and need more of what YOU care about? Well at least you aren’t changing your tune but it’s still a short sighted and not well thought out tune.

@Sakisa
It’s good we both have our own opinions that’s what it’s all about.
But I believe once Xbox get the big guns out game wise probably 2023 onwards and a steady stream throughout the year things should blossom for them a lot better.
The reason Microsoft purchased all those studios is for those big games and sales, they know what will sell in the end and bring them back to the Xbox360 days.

@Sakisa

What? You're going to say Rogue Company is more fun and high end mechanically compared to Red dead 2? I played both.

Is Apex as complete as Titanfall 2? I had more fun with TF2 and it also looks and feels better than Apex.

@RevGaming I’m going to say Unsighted and Tunic are more fun than Red Dead 2, which isn’t hard since that was an unfun tedious slog of a game to me. Yakuza is a far more compelling series to me than Titanfall, and Death’s Door completely buries it imo. Weird West has been fantastic.

When I say I love gamepass, it’s for these kinds of games. And all the people banging on about AAA or MTXs conveniently leave the hundreds of games like those on gamepass out of their equation, well people that care more about these kinds of games than Spider-Man or Last of Us do exist. Sony lost a lot of my attention when they shut Japan Studios down since they put out most of what I cared about from Sony in the last two gens.

@Sol4ris If $70 is too much, Sony will eventually lower it. Let the market dictate what's enough value for them. I don't think GT7 and Ratchet were worth the $70. I think HFW and Demon Souls were. That's subjective. It's not like you can't wait for a sale. I think $10 more for bigger games (HFW is better than HZD in a lot of ways) is not a greedy thing. They can hope to sell better in order to justify increasing the budget for the sequel. Doesn't always work like that.

For me, $120 for online is worse than that. Xbox slowly forcing $60 live only payers to pay $120 instead. I'm not using any services and I don't want to be forced to pay for something I will barely use.

Well, everything is connected. I gotta compare other games that cost less than $70 or are being given away for "free". That's how someone knows how much value there is for something. The campaigns for those games are fine. They aren't as bulky as a lot of SP games but are fine since they come with MP. I was talking about more the multiplayer and its mtx.

"Absolute bull crap and evidence of a total lack of objectivity..... PushSquare is your natural habitat, clearly."

Men lie, Women lie, numbers don't lie. I guess Halo and Gears monetization hasn't shown you anything.

@Sakisa That's fine, but I didn't buy a next gen console to play Tunic. Hollow Knight is in my top 10 games from last gen, but I didn't buy a ps4 to play that. Yeah it is more fun than a lot of triple A games, but the game doesn't take advantage of the $500 I spent.

Japan Studios was "shut down" because Sony now has a mainstream high end blockbuster view. They want Uncharted to be as known as Harry Potter.

@Sakisa

I'm going to be straight honest. For me. Xbox only released Halo and Forza Horizon 5 last year. This year they are only releasing Starfield (Maybe F motorsport but idc about that one since FH5 is there).

I only care about those big games. These smaller, double A games are what some people community call "default games". Meaning they're there just to hold you until what you bought the console for.

@Sakisa How did Activision, T2, EA, Capcom, SE, WB, Bethesda etc. get so big? It wasn't because of small games like Tunic.

Yes. Those AAA games are a fraction of how many games are being made, but 90% of gamers play mostly those AAA games. If Sports and Call of Duty didn't exist, consoles wouldn't reach 100m sales. Yes. It's only 3-4 franchises I just mentioned, but about 10-20m play only those games. Do we really play the 5k games that are on both consoles? We don't care about 95% of the games being made. I'm in top 1% leaderboards wise and I don't even care about those. Imagine the people under me?

@RevGaming And those blockbuster games bore me. If you only care about big games fine, I think Psychonauts 2 put everything else that came out last year to shame personally.

I think getting lots of ‘AA’ games from a subscription model like gamepass is more compelling than dropping $70 on a game that looks and sounds nice with boring and shallow gameplay masked by glitz and glamor, and I wish when people actually talked about gamepass it wasn’t ‘they’re not doing what Sony does with movie games so they’re failing!’ Instead of looking how it actually appeals to people that maybe want to save their money on game buying or just don’t like or care about the big AAA market.

@RevGaming I know why Sony shut Japan Studios down and I don’t care that it’s because they’re chasing after blockbusters, they alienated part of their audience and even if it’s a smaller part I’m under no obligation to let it slide. I think Sony and Jim Ryan going down this route is unfortunate, and I don’t intend to support it.

@Sakisa It's fine if you're bored with AAA gaming. Psychonauts 2 isn't AAA to me. It barely looks Double A to me. If they spent as much as an AAA game, then they didn't spend it well. I can buy it now but I'm not interested in it. I know it's a humorous game, has a lot of awards and it's a good game, but it's not what I look forward to.

"I think getting lots of ‘AA’ games from a subscription model like gamepass is more compelling than dropping $70 on a game"

Not if all of those AA games are mediocre and bore me. Which happens more than it doesn't. So Tunic isn't something that could have been done in earlier gens? I don't get the shallow gameplay thing. Tunic looks shallow to me. Something I could have play on an iPod 5 back in the day.

@themightyant I use VGChartz platform totals.

BTW, the US is just one territory, but proportionately it's the largest territory when it comes to game copy sales. According to VGChartz numbers, the total unit sales of PS4+XBOne results in:

43% North America
39% Europe
4% Japan
13% Others

(This also sheds light on why Sony is dismissing the Japanese market as of late.)

Also, in europe, Sony does not have a 3:1 advantage at this time, they "just" have a 81% advantage for the time being, and xbox is denting at that advantage with the recent trends due to higher supply. You can go to the https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php page to see the over-time trends, just uncheck everything but XS and PS5.

My prediction from the getgo for this generation is that XBox will re-earn its North American dominance this generation as it had in the 360 generation (when they had a 67% advantage by the end of the generation,) but that Sony will be on top in Europe, but doubt it will be a 2:1 advantage in the region. For what its worth, the PS3 had an 88.4% advantage over X360 in Europe by the end of that generation.

@RevGaming Why are we arguing that a paid gaming access/rental service is the same as F2P? Game Pass is not an F2P competitor, its a Blockbuster Video/GameFly competitor. Or a legacy of OnLive which ultimately through a host of buyouts become PS Now Plus. We already have full-priced games with mobile-like MTX for progression, and we have service-hosted games with MTX for cosmetics, and we have non-MTX games from both. The distribution/access model isn't coupled to the monetization model directly, and conflating a paid membership access to F2P is disingenuous.

I can't really tell what your argument is about though. At first it's anti-subscription, then it's pro-Sony (which also has subscriptions), then it's anti F2P (which doesn't have anything to do with anything), then it's about only loving high budget blockbuster games (which also doesn't really have much to do with anything since that type of game is available on both company's subscription services.)

Is it all an elaborate way of saying "I don't like Game Pass or PS Now/Plus because I have very specific gaming preferences and what they offer doesn't fit my preferences?"

@Sakisa That's totally fine. I have never bought anything Sony Japan unless if you want to count Bloodborne. I played Shadow of the Colossus remake for free and it bored me. I finished it, but I don't get the 90 plus score.

@RevGaming I find that most AAA games are either open world game #5603 or third person action game with story focus #7314 with very little change between, where indies and AA games have a lot more variety from my experience, and I find the exploration, combat, and secrets upon secrets of Tunic very engaging.

It’s different strokes, but I wish people like you and Dezzy stopped pretending AAA is all that matters and that people who play gamepass MUST be fine with playing MTX games. That’s a shallow and binary assumption to make about people when AAA is not the only game in town.

@NEStalgia Not the same, but close. It's handicapping yourself unless you want to take a loss, which I don't mind if MS does it. I would say it's great if you're in the double A realm.

Exactly. So if they're already enough full price mtx filled games, why do we want more of those? If we don't give them enough money, they're forced to get it some other way, and those that like to buy games, which will end up being a minority, will pay double since they can't make $ from a minority.

I'm anti services. Doesn't matter from who.

Gaming was fine without them, and now we don't know what we're asking when we want games for no extra cash. I think MS will drop the day 1 in a few years due to backlash from you guys.

"Is it all an elaborate way of saying "I don't like Game Pass or PS Now/Plus because I have very specific gaming preferences and what they offer doesn't fit my preferences?"

Exactly my point.

@Sakisa and I find most indie games mostly 2d side scrollers or top down with little changes from those games with those genres that came years and years ago. If you look at the game awards that's what I mostly see. Maybe some interactive ones here and there.

Well you aren't fine with it because you don't play AAA games, but the ones on xbox that only play AAA games, they should have no problem having $20 skins or 20 hours grind for each character. It's what they asked for without knowing it.

Anyways. Let the games do the talking. If Starfield is a hit, I won't bring it again. I'll just say I want more games like Starfield Xbox. Bring me more!

If Sony did this everyone on this site would be up in arms saying they're 'moneyhatting' & what not lol

@themightyant Microsoft has spent more than 3 times that buying Activision

@Would_you_kindly thats unfortunately the nature of anybody who wants to be on a specific platform. They look at any power move as a sign of hostility. Thats to be expected from literally anyone who really loves the ecosystem they're in.

But really, you can't expect it not to happen on a website dedicated to a particular platform xD

@UltimateOtaku91
Chip factories are extremely expensive and the tech in them has to keep on evolving and changing to be able to make the better and faster chips. Therefore, chip production is always outsourced to the large chip manufacturing facilities. You have to 100's of millions of chips per year to justify your own factory.

@IronMan30
Companies all over the world pay extra to get what they want all the time. This is nothing new...

It is called supply and demand. The chip manufacturers will make more money and be happy, MS will spend more but gain market share so they will be happy. And hopefully the large amount of MS studios will be outputting great games and make gamers happy.

@Rural-Bandit Many? Most still want hardware. I don't know nobody that would prefer to play via cloud, so it does not matter if they could do it.

Doubt anyone is dying for paid cloud saves. I said free to play required gold and absolutely nobody from the xbox camp were talking about it as much as they are mentioning cloud saves. I don't think anyone who dodged that (not saying names) has the right to talk about something that I barely use. Used it once to download ps4 save data to the ps5 and that was it. It is not a big deal.

Yeah. I agree. Rather buy the old games.

It all depends on what 32 games. I will probably end up liking 10 games at the end of the gen and that is fine. It is the same amount ps4 had. I will feel the purchase of the console was justified.

Oh ofcourse. Ps already lost market share. Never said it wasn't going to happen.

I don't think the infrastructure is an issue. Nintendo does not have that and is currently doing better than both atm.

If those games were day 1, horizon 3, gt8 would be worse games due to lack of sales. I am glad that did not happen. I am completely fine buying games since I have done that since gaming was introduced to me.

The only thing sony should worry is if xbox starts mimicking the high budget games sony makes and are as good. Not cloud, services, being friendly to customers, but games.

Yeah. Xbox has failed in a lot of things too. That is not something special about sony. Trillion dollar companies can make mistakes predicting how gamers will consume games (cloud and services). You already saw Phil does not know which strategy is better. Sales or Subs.

@Rural-Bandit

Idk why you mention mlb, re7 or deathloop.

Those are not the examples I am talking about.

1. It has to be day 1 on Gamepass and only on consoles that have gamepass.
2. It has to be high budget (100m plus).

I am not worried about double A or indies as I mentioned above.

No. It will always be about the games. Whoever makes the next fortnite wins.

@Rural-Bandit
Examples of Day 1 gamepass games:
DnD, Outriders, R6 extraction, The Medium, Shadow Warrior 3 (ps now), Halo Infinite, Crossfire X and I am missing a few higher budget AA and AAA titles. I seriously do not know why people forget those came out with issues day 1 on Gamepass but we pretend they are as good as a resident evil or bioshock.

I don't blame anyone. It is not something someone will be paying attention to.

Yes. Starfield is a very key game to this. I am not saying it will happen, but the logic is there and I already see a pattern.

Idk. EA and Ubisoft are the worst 2 third party publishers imo (since AB is out). Are their games day 1 in GP? Hmm. You actually made me notice that.

I never said Gamepass has bad quality titles. The day 1 AAA are the only ones I am concerned with. I think Gamepass will ruin those. Jim never said old games quality will be ruined. He said day 1 games, which is true by the games I pointed out. I even said this before he said that. Years ago.
Doom Eternal is my top 3 game of last gen, but that was not day 1 on GP.

I agree. Sony needed mp games, but they did exactly what they needed to do in that gen where everyone was leaving sp games.
Deathloop was not day 1 on gamepass. That game does not apply here.

Well. At least ps5 owners own those 2 games, but that is not my point. Those two games can sell on ps5 so whatever little they sell on xbox, they can survive with ps5 sales. If mlb was on ps plus, mlb would be getting mad at sony.

Its not a surprise at all. Anyone denying that MS are using their vast wealth to buy this market are delusional at this point, its quite clearly the case.

Whether you see that as clever and creative use of their resources to get competitive edge, or an abuse of dominant financial position, probably doesn't matter. It is currently producing a good deal for gamers, and that cant be denied either.

I was firmly planted in the PlayStation Eco System with 1200+ games in my library and a recurring PS+ sub since day 1. I also have a PS4 Pro and a PSVR. I wouldn’t say I’m a fanboy or super loyal, but after years of being in an ecosystem, it would’ve been nice to have been able to get the next system and bring my games forward.

I have yet to find an acceptable way to get a PS5 and I feel I’ve been left behind. Now my PS+ sub is about to expire and I’m seriously considering shelving my PS4 Pro because I’m feeling disheartened by the whole thing.

Contrast that with the fact that I was able to pick up a series X without a problem. Now I’m finding myself embracing Xbox and am not sure I even want a PS5 at this point.

Well it's Official, Xbox Series X/S will outsell the ps5.

@Rural-Bandit No. Deathloop is not day 1 gp. It came out on ps5. It made its sales. It wont be affected. I still think you don't get what I am saying. Games that have huge budgets will have problems making money back if they are day 1 on services.

No. Mlb would be mad if sony (not xbox) did not make enough money because they put their game on ps plus day 1.

I beat Horizon on the first week of release. I only saw visual bugs. Nothing game breaking. Yes. It is as big as Bioshock. Bigger actually. Bioshock has not released a game recently.

And we will see. First party wise there are not enough examples of how day 1 gp games are lower quality, but from third party is 100% clear they only put mediocre games when the publisher does not expect much from the game.

I am going to end it with this. Don't expect getting that hot and smart girl by going to MCDonalds ($15 a month).

@Rural-Bandit Yes. Those third party games are on all platforms, but when a AAA game is coming to a service day 1, I can already tell they are not expecting the game to blow up so they added the game to gamepass. It is a bit different from first party, since they know from the start it will be in gp.

I do not think 40 and 50m is enough if Netflix is on 200m plus and that is not enough. Movies do not have mtx but do we really want our games filled with mtx so gp can profit? Or do we want the old way we consumed games which worked.

About Hellblade 2. The budget can be bigger, but is it that big? We will see. The game looks great graphically but I am questioning the combat and the content.

Lets see how Redfall, F motorsport, Atomic Heart, Starfield, Stalker 2, Warhammer and Plague Tale 2 (I think it will be good) end up this year.

@themightyant VGChartz guestimations are for the most recent data based on a lot of retail informatin they collect themselves, but they also continuously review their data with other sources like NPD reports.

At the end of the day, long term, VGChartz is as accurate as almost anything. The one thing you can never get there anymore is game unit sales for the same reason no source is reliable anymore, unless the publisher releases numbers for digital sales, no one has a clue how much was actually sold.

As for a portable from Sony, they tried twice. They feel they failed twice, doubt they will ever go back there again. Its still a small market that only gets courted because their exports can be extremely popular over the rest of the world, not because of the Japanese market being that big.

Yes, "others" is a fast growing share of the market, that includes China, Korea, India, South America and Russia between others. They are big markets but they all are a lot more PC focused and part of Microsoft strategy at supporting PC via day one games and Game Pass. I have a feeling PC will stay dominant in those regions for generations to come. If anyone has a chance to become actually huge in those regions it's Nintendo.

@Rural-Bandit Does Netflix produce high budget movies or series like on marvel, dc, wb movies? That is all I am saying.

I don't think there is misinformation. I mentioned a couple of day 1 games that were average and you rarely see a high quality one unless it is an indie game.

Yes. It is lackluster. I don't mind it since I prefer to consume gaming traditionally as I believe that is the best way for games to remain huge production games. They didn't even needed to do it. It is an unproven experiment.

@RevGaming Deathloop sold terribly on PS despite massive advertising attention. Unfortunately. Ironically that game is one of the great examples of the positives of services for single player AAA games. A great, but experimental/niche game can have a solid budget and not have to be designed to be a mass market phenomenon in order to be considered a success if a variety of niche games serve to create value for the membership. A game like HFW, or Assassin's Creed, or [Insert Next Marvel Cooke Cutter Game Here] can never afford to be experimental or take risks. Like a Hollywood blockbuster it has to remain very predictable and follow the trends to please most of the people, most of the time, because it has to be guaranteed to sell like hotcakes, and formulas and sequels are the surest bet. The idea with a service is that games like Deathloop, Gravity Rush, or [Insert Latest Ubisoft Attempt at a Battle Royale Here] can still be successful and flourish by pulling in the same budgeted revenue for the service as a collection of games rather than as an individual blockbuster. Bethesda has even said that specifically regarding their single player games, that, without the buyout and Game Pass were going to become GaaS MTX-a-thon's because the retail model wasn't providing enough revenue for those games.

Nobody can tell you that for your tastes GP/Now-Plus represents a good value if it doesn't. If its offering isn't fit for you, you don't have to pretend it does. But there's false comparisons like MTX vs non-MTX which isn't related to service vs retail at all, both are focusing on MTX, NFT, and the works, regardless of service vs retail models now, even Sony.

I also think the "internet" commentariat (which is a tiny tiny insignificant portion of the games market) tends to become a biased echobox that ends up repeating a lot of industry FUD. Just because an industry exec (looking at Jim Ryan) says a thing, doesn't mean that's the whole story, it just means it's relevant to their particular business strategy at the current moment in time. And may also mean they benefit from creating some FUD regarding any other business strategy they're competing against (Glares intently at Jim Ryan.)

@NEStalgia Yeah. Sadly Arkane Studios games never sell even if they are good. Don't think that can be helped in any way. I don't think they wanted it to be niche though or that it was experimental. It's something in Arkane's dna that does not connect. I think it's the theme and visual designs of their games.

Yeah. I agree with you and I think you agree with me since you are mentioning Deathloop is not as big as AC or Horizon. Yeah. Bethesda was in a bad spot. After f4, I think iD carried that company with their games and engine. iD are monsters and it's my favorite studio from xbox.

We'll see with more games in the future how mtx get worse but from gears 4 to gears 5 it has happened. Not enough evidence so I can't say, but the reasoning makes sense on why they would make it worse.

@Rural-Bandit Mmm. I still prefer non open world games having length too. Like tlou 2 or gow. High budget does not always mean open world.

I could see some GaaS from sony being on ps plus. Tlou 2 won't be one. Maybe that Haven or the rumored twisted metal will be.

Hoping for the best for bethesda.

@Rural-Bandit Now/Plus is classic Ryan saying what's good for today until tomorrow when a new thing is good for today. He went from rejecting BC and old games "who would want to play this?", to selling an entire service where the only real feature is the old games he downplayed when he didn't have them. Plus paywalling streaming behind a higher tier package when it used to be the default for the low tier package.

I think the bottom tier will remain their mainstay, and the second tier will gain traction IF they actually stock it with good games, otherwise it'll go the way the old Now did. The top tier, I can't imagine many in the public actually paying for that. The classic game niche will like it, but Jim was half right when he rejected retro games - people DO want to play older games but they don't want to pay a super premium for them unless they're Nintendo old games. And while MS has been building a strong market for streaming-only customers, including mobile-only streaming customers, PS hasn't really put any energy into that, so paywalling streaming at a higher price isn't going to get them much market.

I do think Now/Plus is a massively missed opportunity for them that they're intentionally sabotaging because they still, ultimately, don't really want it to succeed. They're too fearful it'll interfere with their existing strategy. Which may be a valid concern, but hamstringing your own product so it doesn't compete with your better selling product never looks good, though it works for Apple that refuses to add touch screens to laptops like every other laptop because they don't want to compete with their iPad

@themightyant 81 million vs 155 million Nintendo DS systems, even that victory makes them feel like they lost by half a race.

I doubt we will get any portable from XBox, best we might get from them will be a streaming focused handheld device, even that I would expect them to do via partnerships with Samsung or some other manufacturer.

@Rural-Bandit lol I knew you'd bite on apple

Yeah, Tim Cook and Jim Ryan are like minded. Every other laptop other than desktop replacement mobile workstation type machines have touch screens now except Apple.... It, combined with the track pad greatly enhances usability. Timbo is as full of it as Jimbo They don't want to cannibalize ipad + laptop ecosystem, otherwise MacBook air could become like Surface Pro for users and negate the need for both, and Tim will have none of that. Doesn't work on everyone though. I was going to buy MacBook air at one point until I found that out. No thanks, it's a big ease of use feature once you're used to it. If course Tim knows that, otherwise he'd tell everyone to stop buying iPads and buy MacBooks with real track pads, wouldn't he?

The trick is the touch screen isn't instead of the track pad, it's a compliment, because neither is as good as a full size mouse, the combination for different actions makes some actions more preferable on one than the other. I've had 4 laptops with touch screens now including surface pro. No way I'd go back to a 1990s laptop interface again! I don't use the touch for everything, but for some actions. You'll get used to it if you try that surface. Use it WITH the track pad, not instead of it!