It's going to cost a fortune. How many people actually bought the Rog Ally X which was 1k? And that's a handheld... I wouldn't count on this next thing to be subsidized especially now that its all about playing on multiple storefronts with Xbox now. I expect this thing to be closer to 2k if anything.
We'll probably see a "Helix S" for a cheaper version.
@SMJ massive goalpost shift, part deux. Every PS gen would include the PS4. I'm comparing current output of Sony from now to the PS4 gen aligned. I provided evidence that they're not necessarily down at the moment compared to last gen in terms of output especially now that were midway into the gen which is usually when things pick up anyway. And all you could say to that was shrug off each title as if it wasn't output, as if your opinion mattered on the games. We're talking quantity here which is an objective measure. 2018 was considered one of the best years of the PS4 and Sony's publishing output now basically eclipses that. But okay I guess.
@SMJ There might have been a bit of a backup and less than stellar decisions made with 1st party studios, but if you compare the 5th year of the PS5 to the 5th year of the PS4, their output now is objectively better. At least in terms of quantity.
MLB (a given) Marathon GoW Sons Of Sparta Saros Wolverine Horizon Hunters Gathering TBD
Also not taking into account the publishing partnerships they have with the Kena sequel, Marvel Tokon, 4 Loop, etc.
The publishing output is straight up better.
PS4 had:
GOW 2018 Shadow of The Colossus MLB Detroit Become Human Spiderman 2018
Insomniac and Quantic Dream (if we really want to be pedantic) weren't first party studios then. So basically they had 3 first party games for the console then.
@Gemini53 Yeah, I understand that. What I was saying was, what's really going be "affected" if this strategy shift is actually true, is PC. Not the next Xbox. I mean it's funny.
That's like saying the Xbox Rog Ally is affected, it's a PC handheld. Even so, is PC even "affected" here? Steam is the greatest thing ever, or so I was told. It was never an entitlement that it would be getting all first party Sony titles anyway. It already has a vast library of games.
...Why would that affect the next Xbox? When Playstation ports their games, they put them on Steam and/or Epic Games. They're not porting them to Xbox, but PC storefronts. If the next Xbox is going to be open platform then it's basically just going to be a PC.
If you needed PS first party games on a PC storefront Microsoft really has zero to do with as a selling point for this next Xbox, that is pretty grim. Steam is supposed to be this incredibly attractive platform with a vast library of games, which people claim is the apotheosis of gaming. If that's the case, why all this commotion?
Shouldn't the next "Xbox" should sell itself? Kind of funny how for Xbox to actually be attractive it needs other things that pretty much have no relation to it.
Why would they? MS already says they want to meet players where they are (Asha Sharma basically echoed this days ago) continuing the "every screen" rhetoric today. Data has already shown that most consumer spending on MS first party titles happens on Playstation compared to Xbox and PC combined.
Someone is going to have to explain how MS, whose inherited some of the biggest publishers in gaming with a loss leading subscription service that has barely seen growth, with rapidly dwindling console hardware sales and userbase is going to justify the exclusivity strategy that I could've sworn people in the Xbox community eschewed after prior leadership (Sarah Bond and Co.) Claimed exclusives were antiquated.
As much it would be nice for Xbox to have some sort of competitive strategy again, like other people here have said; the genie is out of the bottle. They have set their gaming buisness up in such a way where it is virtually impossible to justify such a strategy.
Everyone keeps talking about the XboxPC which would be an open platform (a PC) with multiple storefronts and how in the future, there's a hope that exclusivity may be prioritized along with it. If Xbox and PC are going to merge as this hybrid device... Why do we continue talking about them as seperate platforms right now in regards to keeping the next mainline Halo game "exclusive" (assuming its next gen exclusive)? You could easily presume that by then Xbox would have put out the new Magnus people in this community are speculating about. If it is fundamentally going to be a PC but with a console-like experience and you're pleading to MS to make games like Halo exclusive again, what you're really doing is telling them to make games exclusively for PC. Also, assuming GP is alive by then, it would quite likely extremely cripple the sales performance of the game more than what happens to most Xbox first party games back when they had an exclusive strategy with Xbox and PC.
Sharma saying that she hears community concerns about exclusivity does not mean anything at this point. What you are asking for here is a miracle bro.
It's all resource management. For MS, knowing their goals now there's just no strategy to intentionally stagger or have indefinite exclusivity to create product differentiation. That's a central strategy only for the other big two at this point.
@fatpunkslim Respectfully, I don't know how someone evaluates the statements and actions MS representatives have demonstrated the past year that show going forward they want to distribute their software across platforms on a "case by case basis." Its clear they're in a transitional period in which they are equipping their studios for fully wide range multiplatform development, these things take time. They have made it abundantly obvious that they're not interested in strategically differentiating their platform from a competitive standpoint. The writing has been on the wall on this for some time now. You think it's a "bad idea" they're putting Fable on Playstation day 1? MS doesn't think so. Just last year Xbox execs declared that exclusives are "antiquated" soon after revealing Halo for Playstation (which is also releasing day 1) and that the biggest games were everywhere. Phil Spencer is on record telling the audience that they they're not trying to "attract" people to Xbox anymore. And if you think about it for more than .5 seconds, they don't have to try at all since, you know, they consider everything an Xbox. The strategy of putting up walls for people to access their games as a way to gain competitive ground isn't viable for them, and nonsensical when you look at the very noticeable downtrend of their own bespoke hardware and barely growing subscription service on Xbox and PC. Not to mention all their software launched day and date on both for years. To redo all that work to gain the lost marketshare via massive investments into marketing and exclusivity vs the potential astronomical profits they could gain from leveraging platforms like Playstation which have remained strong and made their way into over 90+ million homes is the best route they could have taken. It makes even more sense for them to do this now when you acknowledge MS spent over 100 billion dollars on massive publishers and studios in the past half decade ON TOP of having to fund every single one, ON TOP of investing billions and billions into Gamepass annually. A PC/Xbox Gamepass exclusive strategy, once you consider all these things, blatantly isn't sustainable. MS (specifically CEO Satya Nadella) even mentioned they have they opportunity to become the biggest publisher on Playstation. You don't accomplish that goal by adopting a "case by case" strategy.
The new Xbox is essentially going to be a PC, they have already begun the marketing of being able to play anywhere you want on any storefront as some novel idea as if you couldn't already do that on a regular PC. They have almost entirely pivoted away from exclusively funneling people into their storefront and ecosystem. Riddle me this, what benefit is there for them to be promoting other storefronts? Especially if, the vast majority of games being bought on them aren't their games? Do you really think they're going to strategize around their next hardware effort as a competitive, mass market device? It's time to forgo comparing both Sony and MS in this space. From (definitely) exclusivity, to hardware strategy. After all, MS doesn't consider Sony a competitor anymore.
Comments 11
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer Was Asked About Retirement A Year Ago, And Here's What He Said
I wish him the best.
Re: 'It Will Lead In Performance' - Xbox's Price Tag For Project Helix Could Be Pretty High
It's going to cost a fortune. How many people actually bought the Rog Ally X which was 1k? And that's a handheld... I wouldn't count on this next thing to be subsidized especially now that its all about playing on multiple storefronts with Xbox now. I expect this thing to be closer to 2k if anything.
We'll probably see a "Helix S" for a cheaper version.
Re: Next Xbox Console Could Be Affected By PlayStation Pulling Back On PC
Removed
Re: Next Xbox Console Could Be Affected By PlayStation Pulling Back On PC
@SMJ massive goalpost shift, part deux. Every PS gen would include the PS4. I'm comparing current output of Sony from now to the PS4 gen aligned. I provided evidence that they're not necessarily down at the moment compared to last gen in terms of output especially now that were midway into the gen which is usually when things pick up anyway. And all you could say to that was shrug off each title as if it wasn't output, as if your opinion mattered on the games. We're talking quantity here which is an objective measure. 2018 was considered one of the best years of the PS4 and Sony's publishing output now basically eclipses that. But okay I guess.
Re: Next Xbox Console Could Be Affected By PlayStation Pulling Back On PC
@SMJ and there goes the massive goalpost shift.
Re: Next Xbox Console Could Be Affected By PlayStation Pulling Back On PC
@SMJ There might have been a bit of a backup and less than stellar decisions made with 1st party studios, but if you compare the 5th year of the PS5 to the 5th year of the PS4, their output now is objectively better. At least in terms of quantity.
MLB (a given)
Marathon
GoW Sons Of Sparta
Saros
Wolverine
Horizon Hunters Gathering TBD
Also not taking into account the publishing partnerships they have with the Kena sequel, Marvel Tokon, 4 Loop, etc.
The publishing output is straight up better.
PS4 had:
GOW 2018
Shadow of The Colossus
MLB
Detroit Become Human
Spiderman 2018
Insomniac and Quantic Dream (if we really want to be pedantic) weren't first party studios then. So basically they had 3 first party games for the console then.
Re: Next Xbox Console Could Be Affected By PlayStation Pulling Back On PC
@Gemini53 Yeah, I understand that. What I was saying was, what's really going be "affected" if this strategy shift is actually true, is PC. Not the next Xbox. I mean it's funny.
That's like saying the Xbox Rog Ally is affected, it's a PC handheld. Even so, is PC even "affected" here? Steam is the greatest thing ever, or so I was told. It was never an entitlement that it would be getting all first party Sony titles anyway. It already has a vast library of games.
Re: Next Xbox Console Could Be Affected By PlayStation Pulling Back On PC
...Why would that affect the next Xbox? When Playstation ports their games, they put them on Steam and/or Epic Games. They're not porting them to Xbox, but PC storefronts. If the next Xbox is going to be open platform then it's basically just going to be a PC.
If you needed PS first party games on a PC storefront Microsoft really has zero to do with as a selling point for this next Xbox, that is pretty grim. Steam is supposed to be this incredibly attractive platform with a vast library of games, which people claim is the apotheosis of gaming. If that's the case, why all this commotion?
Shouldn't the next "Xbox" should sell itself? Kind of funny how for Xbox to actually be attractive it needs other things that pretty much have no relation to it.
Re: Opinion: Xbox Should Consider Cancelling Halo: Campaign Evolved For PS5
Why would they? MS already says they want to meet players where they are (Asha Sharma basically echoed this days ago) continuing the "every screen" rhetoric today. Data has already shown that most consumer spending on MS first party titles happens on Playstation compared to Xbox and PC combined.
Someone is going to have to explain how MS, whose inherited some of the biggest publishers in gaming with a loss leading subscription service that has barely seen growth, with rapidly dwindling console hardware sales and userbase is going to justify the exclusivity strategy that I could've sworn people in the Xbox community eschewed after prior leadership (Sarah Bond and Co.) Claimed exclusives were antiquated.
As much it would be nice for Xbox to have some sort of competitive strategy again, like other people here have said; the genie is out of the bottle. They have set their gaming buisness up in such a way where it is virtually impossible to justify such a strategy.
Everyone keeps talking about the XboxPC which would be an open platform (a PC) with multiple storefronts and how in the future, there's a hope that exclusivity may be prioritized along with it. If Xbox and PC are going to merge as this hybrid device... Why do we continue talking about them as seperate platforms right now in regards to keeping the next mainline Halo game "exclusive" (assuming its next gen exclusive)? You could easily presume that by then Xbox would have put out the new Magnus people in this community are speculating about. If it is fundamentally going to be a PC but with a console-like experience and you're pleading to MS to make games like Halo exclusive again, what you're really doing is telling them to make games exclusively for PC. Also, assuming GP is alive by then, it would quite likely extremely cripple the sales performance of the game more than what happens to most Xbox first party games back when they had an exclusive strategy with Xbox and PC.
Sharma saying that she hears community concerns about exclusivity does not mean anything at this point. What you are asking for here is a miracle bro.
Re: Xbox Exec Explains Why Some Games Are 'Day One' For PS5, And Others Aren't
It's all resource management. For MS, knowing their goals now there's just no strategy to intentionally stagger or have indefinite exclusivity to create product differentiation. That's a central strategy only for the other big two at this point.
The games are looking great though.
Re: Fable Showcases Stunning Gameplay Deep Dive, Arrives On Xbox, PC & PS5 Later This Year
@fatpunkslim Respectfully, I don't know how someone evaluates the statements and actions MS representatives have demonstrated the past year that show going forward they want to distribute their software across platforms on a "case by case basis." Its clear they're in a transitional period in which they are equipping their studios for fully wide range multiplatform development, these things take time. They have made it abundantly obvious that they're not interested in strategically differentiating their platform from a competitive standpoint. The writing has been on the wall on this for some time now. You think it's a "bad idea" they're putting Fable on Playstation day 1? MS doesn't think so. Just last year Xbox execs declared that exclusives are "antiquated" soon after revealing Halo for Playstation (which is also releasing day 1) and that the biggest games were everywhere. Phil Spencer is on record telling the audience that they they're not trying to "attract" people to Xbox anymore. And if you think about it for more than .5 seconds, they don't have to try at all since, you know, they consider everything an Xbox. The strategy of putting up walls for people to access their games as a way to gain competitive ground isn't viable for them, and nonsensical when you look at the very noticeable downtrend of their own bespoke hardware and barely growing subscription service on Xbox and PC. Not to mention all their software launched day and date on both for years. To redo all that work to gain the lost marketshare via massive investments into marketing and exclusivity vs the potential astronomical profits they could gain from leveraging platforms like Playstation which have remained strong and made their way into over 90+ million homes is the best route they could have taken. It makes even more sense for them to do this now when you acknowledge MS spent over 100 billion dollars on massive publishers and studios in the past half decade ON TOP of having to fund every single one, ON TOP of investing billions and billions into Gamepass annually. A PC/Xbox Gamepass exclusive strategy, once you consider all these things, blatantly isn't sustainable. MS (specifically CEO Satya Nadella) even mentioned they have they opportunity to become the biggest publisher on Playstation. You don't accomplish that goal by adopting a "case by case" strategy.
The new Xbox is essentially going to be a PC, they have already begun the marketing of being able to play anywhere you want on any storefront as some novel idea as if you couldn't already do that on a regular PC. They have almost entirely pivoted away from exclusively funneling people into their storefront and ecosystem. Riddle me this, what benefit is there for them to be promoting other storefronts? Especially if, the vast majority of games being bought on them aren't their games? Do you really think they're going to strategize around their next hardware effort as a competitive, mass market device? It's time to forgo comparing both Sony and MS in this space. From (definitely) exclusivity, to hardware strategy. After all, MS doesn't consider Sony a competitor anymore.