It's no secret that Xbox has been pretty open about trying to break down barriers between console platforms. Xbox boss Phil Spencer routinely takes to the Twitter airways to celebrate the folks over at PlayStation and some of their high profile releases, not to mention Xbox's continued push for full cross-play support. Xbox's Aaron Greenberg feels that too, recently commenting on a PlayStation fan account that praised some Xbox franchises.
Greenberg feels we should all be celebrating various console platforms and the great games they all produce. Again, this has been typical of Xbox in recent times as the company becomes more open about its ecosystem.
It's had an effect too. As time goes by PlayStation becomes more and more receptive to cross-play, with the feature recently added to Borderlands 3, for example, where it was previously unavailable on that platform. This is all good news for us as fans, who get to play and celebrate games with much broader audiences.
What do you make of this comment? Should Greenberg be focusing his efforts on Xbox? Comment below.
Isn't this the guy who has been trolling playstation on a few occasions over the last 12 months? 😏
If you want to break down barriers Phil, make Starfield cross platform...
Be kind and let our common love bring us together. Yuck. That’s no fun.
Cool. Now put your money where your mouth is and have Starfield on PS4/5.
I just want compatible games save data for all console, so I can play dead cells on my xbox series x, ps5, and switch with the same save.
Actually, I'm ok with Starfield being timed XBox exclusive, just make it polished.
Also, cross-platform purchases as a slightly more expensive tier!
This from the same company buying one of the biggest publishers and already owns Bethesda. PlayStation as re guilty of this too. Just stop making exclusives if you want to break down barriers between consoles
@AhabSpampurse he kind of has. It's the easiest time to play xbox games. Get a controller, the app on samsung TVs(or where applicable), some gamepass months. It's probably the cheapest way to play starfield.
@Royalblues I'm still amazed that people still have a hard time seeing that PS today is everything Xbox was years ago and both are little more than custom PCs. I know why people don't want to see it, but I'm amazed that so many don't. Both XB and PS have more in common with Steamdeck than Steamdeck does with Switch. TBH I'm not totally sure why people dislike that direction....it generally should lower development barriers and lower prices....though people seem to love celebrating higher prices for some reason (seriously, more than defending high prices, I've seen some celebrating them..... I've never heard of people celebrating inflation unless they're a loan officer, but...... welcome to the neurotic fetishists that is gaming culture?)
@Royalblues The whole anti-subscription thing is secondary to the consoles both being custom PCs and going fully toward PC, though, I can, to a point, understand that viewpoint. If you're operating from the mindset that subscriptions and the like are money-losing propositions, I can see the doubt at the viability on subscriptions. After all, Spotify has been a poopstorm in that regard, and Netflix is.....shaky at best. But it also ignores the complicated business maneuverings involved, and a
desirenecessity to expand market reach. It's a hyper competitive industry with hundreds of titles per year, and most of the people paying full price for each title are, realistically only buying a handful of hyper-marketed titles from only the biggest of studios. What happens to hundreds of annual titles if the core market plays a few of the biggest and stops there?
When the same people talk about resale of used physical games, physical games in general (sold at wholesale pricing), though, the whole argument goes right down the toilet, as that actually funds the product less than low recurring payments.... The second owner has the same business value as someone that pirated a copy, or both paid, at best, $35 each....but...physical is sold at wholesale price, meaning both paid probably about $20 to the platform, $15 to Amazon/Target/Tesco/Wherever , minus platform fees, probably about $15 to the dev, if we're optimistic. Which then brings us back to a physical resold copy yielding about $20 (to the platform) for the purchase on average for a few games a year, vs paying $15/mo to Game Pass....... For the average (not the die-hard forum enthusiast that makes up less than 5% at best of the platform's market) player.....subscription annual spend vs retail average spend is likely about par. But also exposes users to more varied content.
In reality the expectation of physical sales yielding such low returns is almost certainly a huge part of the $70 pricing to begin with. Each license is assigned the price of at least 2 licenses with the expectation it will be resold. They're not "$70 games", they're $15 games plus $5 to the platform, $15 to the retailer (if they don't discount), and the price for the resale is baked into the original purchase. People don't see Matrick's "fee for used copies" built into the up-front purchase, but it's there, after all. How the user splits that difference when reselling doesn't change the math of about $20 tops going to the publisher for either license from the wholesale price of physical.
Where things get ugly is the fact that digital follows that pricing because "it can." Much as I hate NFT,s I wish NFTs would be used for resale of digital, simply to set appropriate value for the price charged.
To make a realistic comparison anyone against subs and advocating to spend more also needs to commit to never selling, lending, or donating, a game. And really needs to commit to all-digital, because a chunk of what they're paying is going to a middleman and not the platform. Otherwise, it's already not a like for like comparison, it's glossing over all the business details.
@Royalblues i only ignored the Insomniac games because in all honesty I forgot about them. I'm against both sides of this current publisher buying battle. All it does is stop people having a choice. I think PlayStation and Xbox need to get together and just make a joint console
@FuzzieGinge88 the risk with that thinking is while captialism is a hard pill to swallow competition isnt.
The one key business phrase still holds true to date "competition drives quality" if the industry was limited to two of the biggest players having a joint machine the risk of complacency goes up ten fold and quality would inevitably suffer.
While the whole acquisition thing is a different problem having a unified machine would create more problems than it solved.
Console wars are dead in the water, or should be. This is a bit ironic though as at least in the 360 days especially Greenberg loved stoking the fire in the media.
That tweet is almost like him being a mouthpiece for Phil at this point.
@Jaxx420 but can you imagine how good that initial console would be though lol? They could cancel out the shortcomings of each other and build a beast of a machine
Console wars are so much more fun and cool than this whole charade where they kiss each others bums. I want them to be taking cheap shots at each other on social media or something.
@Techno92LFC Maybe that would be a funny read. For a short time.
Problem is it would incentivise all those trolls to start getting vocal and their antics do nothing more than bore the rest of us who just want to play games.
Unless you were being sarcastic. In that case #longdayatworkandmissedthepoint.
@GunValkyrian I've re-read what I wrote, and it does not sound correct. What I meant is I would be happy with it being a time exclusive (but I don't know if it is).
Anyway, English is not my first language, sorry for the confusion
@FuzzieGinge88 £90 games full of mocrotransactions would indeed be awesome.
Xbox just annoys me when they constantly do tweets like this. First, I don’t believe it. If Xbox cared about bringing us altogether they wouldn’t have been placing paywalls on multiplayer for 4 generations. They wouldn’t be making billion dollar investments in publishing houses. And they wouldn’t be ensuring exclusive content.
What I do believe is, and what they’ve made clear since the dawn of Phil is, they don’t care about the console/s. They value gamepass. They would have gamepass on PlayStation in a heartbeat…at which point Xbox fanboys become even more ridiculous. And PlayStation fanboys move the goalpost to another field.
Xbox are actually constantly making competitive moves to ensure the success of gamepass. Instead of praising PlayStation and PlayStation studios, I’d love them to drop the act (one that only the softest here actually believe) and vocally be proud they’re in this game to win it. Phil should be actually checking in on his studios and asking why they’re not making something the same quality as god of war ect. Then we all win.
@Royalblues Actually the industry itself had said it many moons ago about the effect of used games. Back during the launch of the 360/PS3 when they raised prices from $50 to $60 for consoles (despite PC staying at 50), they said it was explicitly because of the cost to the industry of console used games. That was around the time when GameStop was commercializing used games as their primary business and rewriting how games are bought/sold. It wasn't much of an issue until GameStop made it a hard push to push the trade-in cycle as the central pillar of sales that the industry responded with that.
That lead to Matrick's heavy handed push to directly charge a one-time fee to "activate" a purchased retail game on a new account that was roundly rejected. And that was also a key factor behind the industry focusing on DLC and online passes (to make money on used copies) and focusing on early multiplayer games (and the "single player is dead" EA meme), because the method of combating the losses from used games shifted from monetizing it to making games that people would not sell. Reggie had stated a similar objective for Nintendo during the WiiU cycle in terms of "creating games that people don't want to sell".
So largely, GameStop started this whole focus on buy/sell instead of buy new, and the industry responded by raising prices, and changing the types of games they make to things with minimal resale market....redesigning what games are to defeat the buy/sell market. GaaS exists as much to prevent resale as it does for ongoing monetization.
And now we have Sony, 2K, Ubi etc pushing the "we need $70 prices" narrative, which is just the latest version of the same thing, but somehow nobody remembers the industry saying it was because of used games, back, what, 15 years ago? And Game Pass is also, just a different way of circumventing it, except putting the carrot on the stick instead of just using a stick, buy making it beneficial to the customer to do it their way. After all, $15/mo, every month, would be the same, or more money into the platform than the platform would actually see from the average retail customer. Not the extreme customers that bought Elden Ring and platinumed it in 3 weeks and went searching for a new game. The average customer that buys AC Valhalla and is set for the next 8 months.
Edit: Actually 360 didn't go to 60 right away I think, and another reason PS3 did was because of BD discs vs DVD. But at some point it rose during the 360 gen.
@FuzzieGinge88 that would be a terrible idea!! They’d have a monopoly!! No competition means they don’t ever have to improve.
@Skedaddle Meh... Playstation can keep God of War, that an internally owned IP. Spider-Man on the other hand needs to go multiplatform just like MLB.
@Skedaddle you do realise that God of War is a Sony IP, yeah? And that MS literally passed up Spider-man to Sony because they "wanted to prioritse their own IP"?
@dsar9012 Sony also own Sony San Diego, but here we are with MLB the Show on Xbox and Switch. Sony doesn't own Spider-Man, they're only borrowing the license from Disney, and if Disney wanted Spider-Man on Xbox... They would have to put it on the platform or potential lose the license.
@Krysus it was already in development for ps5 until Microsoft bought Bethesda
@Would_you_kindly If they were truly deep in Playstation development for Starfield, there would be a contract involved. Which Microsoft would have to honor as they did Deathloop.
I don't doubt they would have easily put it on the Playstation platform. I just dislike the whole inauthentic 'Platform wars are bad! Let's all be Friends!' routine, when we all know about Bethesda's exclusivity.
@Krysus deathloop was closer to being finished & Bethesda had already made an agreement with Sony for timed exclusivity of that one
The only thing Playstation gives me to celebrate is watching their lawyer make a fool of herself in the tribunal while finding out the manager who was rude to me had gotten fired 2 days before he was set to represent their side at the hearing.
Absolutely horrible company to give my business to, but at least they did put on a good circus show for me.
"Isn't this the guy who has been trolling playstation on a few occasions over the last 12 months? 😏"
No, that would be Jim Rayan aka the snake oil salesman @we believe in generations, unlike our competitors 🤣 blah,blah..
For f**k sakes, you can always see the Sony fanboys standing out like absolute sore thumbs on every Xbox related article regarding exclusives. Here they are again complaining about Microsoft not producing exclusives for their console 🙄, while completely ignoring the millions of happy people invested in the Xbox ecosystem(for the games currently in development) and with more games to play on GP alone then the vast majority have the time for....there's always a PlayStation, and with their exclusives going to PC the choice is there, rather than constantly complain about Xbox 🤷♂️
@BartoxTharglod Yeah, I'm kinda with you, except I'm kind of over the cost, troubleshooting, and parts failures involved with PC. Console as an ecosystem, especially with being able to stream to a phone etc to get "handheld" play, still adds value, if not most value. Sure you can rig PCs up that way, too but they're power guzzling heat spewing nightmares, And the power states never work right with games.
There's that part of me that more and more wants to creep back to PC because of it, but I know it's one of those things that just fails cost-benefit. I'd much rather the consoles just fully embrace PC instead of having to try to shoehorn a PC into becoming a console. Steamdeck almost bridges the two....but there's still enough meh that I can't quite pull the trigger.
Just officially became console agnostic on Sunday when my Ps5 arrived on Sunday. Switch is probably still my favorite bc I have more invested in it, love handheld gaming and then the exclusives are the best. But it’s really feeling dated now that I have both Series X and PS5.
Series X is my entertainment hub. Really love Forza and the value of GamePass. Plus have a ton of X One games already.
Ps5….new to the ecosystem mostly tho I have a Vita. So I have the option to play all those exclusives for relatively cheap. The controller is more robust, but I find the Elite controller far more ergonomic.
Mentioned above is the Steamdeck. Might get that purely as a handheld enthusiast, but probably not for a while.
@dsar9012 Doesn't have any exclusives? Look dude, I play on everything except Switch but I'm not as pigheaded as you clearly are. Starfield is exclusive. Forza is exclusive. Hellblade II is exclusive. Halo is exclusive. Gears is exclusive. The Outer Worlds II is exclusive. Fable is exclusive. Microsoft Flight Simulator is exclusive. Sea of Thieves is exclusive. As Dusk Falls is exclusive. Scorn is exclusive. State of Decay is exclusive. Everwild is exclusive. Redfall is exclusive. Warhammer 40k Dark Tide is exclusive. Stalker 2 is exclusive.
Tap here to load 33 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...