I agree with the Sony isn't scared of Microsoft part. Sony definitely still views Xbox as competition, more so than they do Nintendo or PC IMO, but they aren't porting games to Xbox because they think of Microsoft as their fierce rival. Even though Microsoft doesn't think the same anymore.
Like you said, Sony doesn't really have an incentive to port games to Xbox at the moment, because they're direct competition. Sony, however, is okay with bringing some of their games to Switch and Switch 2 because they don't think it will harm their market dominance or brand image.
The only way I think Sony will ever willingly port games to Xbox is if Microsoft's multiplatform plan somehow works, and if Xbox still maintains the ~30 million console users it currently has, despite losing all exclusives. Maybe then Sony's shareholders will push PlayStation to port more of their games to Xbox and Switch 2, but that's still unlikely.
@wildcat_kickz Last thing I wanted to add is that, if the ABK deal never happened, Microsoft would have probably not gone multiplatform. At least not during this console generation. If they did go multiplatform, it would have probably happened like 5-10 years from now.
@wildcat_kickz Yes, Microsoft wants endless growth from their Xbox division. They would have still grown if they kept their games exclusive and followed through with their original plans, but it would have taken a longer time. Going multiplatform was the easiest and quickest way to make the most money, regardless of if it ends up being detrimental to Xbox in the long run.
Shareholders and Microsoft execs definitely do not care about console market paradigms. Satya said a few years ago, in fact, that he hates exclusives and that Xbox "had no choice" but to do them because Sony does exclusives, as well. Obviously, Satya must have forced Xbox's hand later on, because now Xbox has no exclusives.
I would argue that Microsoft would probably make more money in the long run by keeping all their games exclusive and forcing PlayStation and Nintendo players to buy an Xbox. Game Pass, in this scenario, would probably grow dramatically as well, because Xbox console sales would increase.
However, this would take a lot of time and effort to achieve, which Microsoft doesn't have the guts to do. In order to properly compete with PlayStation and Nintendo, Microsoft would have to get up off their butts and hire an actually competent marketing division, and they'd have to keep their consoles in stock worldwide, like PlayStation does.
All of this is too much of a hassle for Satya and the shareholders, so, of course, they chose the multiplatform pivot instead.
@wildcat_kickz I would disagree with the notion that you and @DennisReynolds have said about Microsoft NEEDING to change their business strategy. Microsoft did not NEED to go multiplatform, Xbox would not have gone bankrupt if they didn't put Halo/Gears/Forza on PlayStation this year.
There are a lot of similarities between Xbox and Sega, but the fate of their console divisions do differ in one notable way. Sega was bleeding cash near the end of the Dreamcast generation, their entire business was in the red since no one was buying their consoles or games (which was their only major source of revenue). Sega had no choice but to go multiplatform; otherwise, they would have gone bankrupt and closed their doors.
Xbox is not in the same position. Xbox consoles aren't selling well (they're still doing better than the Dreamcast), but the Xbox business as a whole was still successful, even before the multiplatform push. In 2023, for example, back when all Xbox games were still exclusive, Microsoft reported record-breaking revenue two times in a row for its Xbox division, in spite of underwhelming hardware sales.
This shows that Xbox was, by no means, struggling in the same way that Sega was. Even if they kept all their games exclusive, Xbox was at no risk of going bankrupt in the future. In fact, their business would still be growing, but not at the fast-enough pace that Microsoft's shareholders desire.
At the end of the day, Xbox going multiplatform is not something that Microsoft NEEDED to do. It is something Microsoft chose to do, because, frankly, I think Microsoft is run by fools. Microsoft higher-ups do not understand the gaming industry, and they prioritize short-term gains over long-term wins. After spending $70 billion dollars on Activision, Microsoft took control of the Xbox division and decided they want to make money as fast as possible, regardless of if it kills their console division in the process.
The catalyst of Xbox going multiplatform is not "slow Xbox console sales" or "no one buys games on Xbox because of Game Pass," the catalyst is Xbox spending $70 billion on ABK and MS wanting that money back ASAP.
@Tasuki I think the fact that Borderlands 4 is $80 in Europe and pretty much everywhere else except the U.S., makes me think that 2K was originally planning to charge $80 in the US, as well
@InterceptorAlpha It says, "entire Xbox library," though. That includes OG Xbox and Xbox 360 games.
Either way, even if we're looking at Xbox Series games only, there are many Xbox Series X/S games that are not available on PC, nor are they Play Anywhere. Unicorn Overlord, GTA 6, Arcade Archives 2 Ridge Racer, MLB The Show, College Football, etc, are all on Xbox, but not on PC.
Like I said, "fully backwards compatible with your existing Xbox library" would entail all of these games, as well. There is no room for half-truths there. If it can't play these games, then this statement would be objectively wrong.
Either way, what you suggest wouldn't really make a lot of sense. The next Xbox will only be able to run PC versions of the games in our existing Xbox library? The only way that would be possible is if Microsoft makes all current Xbox games Xbox Play Anywhere compatible, which is never gonna happen.
I talked to some PlayStation fans on Push Square a few days ago, who thought that it was unfair for Microsoft to buy up studios and publishers for exclusivity. However, the reality of the situation is that Microsoft had no choice but to buy up studios and publishers in order to get compelling AAA Xbox exclusives.
They can't buy exclusivity from third-party developers constantly, like Sony can, since they would have to pay far more for exclusivity deals (and Game Pass deals, as well) compared to Sony. Plus, they also couldn't build tons of studios from the ground up and expect them to release amazing blockbuster IPs out of nowhere.
Buying publishers like Bethesda was pretty much the only feasible way for Microsoft to compete toe-to-toe with PlayStation for exclusivity. And, for the record, even though some PlayStation fans have complained that Microsoft has taken games away from PS players, Sony has taken far more compelling AAA third-party titles away from Xbox players than Microsoft ever has this generation. Most of MS's third-party exclusives have been AA or indie titles, at best, while Sony secures third-party AAA blockbuster after third-party AAA blockbuster exclusively for PlayStation.
Of course, none of this really matters anymore, since Xbox exclusive is an antiquated term now.
@J_Mo_Money Ubisoft+ does have day-one games on Xbox and PC, but it doesn't have day-one games on PlayStation. The only version of Ubisoft+ available on PlayStation is Ubisoft+ Classics, which only has old titles
@LogicStrikesAgain If hardly anyone bought Square Enix games on Xbox, then Square Enix wouldn't be in a rush to port all of their tentpole titles to Xbox. And before you bring up the FF16 Xbox sales report, it's important to note that that Alinea Analytics sales "report" was determined by counting the amount of reviews for FF16 on the Xbox store and comparing it to PS/Steam. In other words, it's wholly unreliable.
FF16 Complete Edition (the $70 version of the game) is currently the 11th best selling game on Xbox in the U.S. That, to me, suggests it's doing pretty good for a late port of a Final Fantasy game.
@DarthVerde To be fair, there is a zero percent chance that the PS6 will be at the same price or less than the PS5 Pro. Chances are the PS6 will be a minimum $800 device, without a disc drive.
@InterceptorAlpha Not sure where you're getting all this "form" stuff from.
In the description for the Xbox + AMD video, it explicitly says that the next Xbox is "fully compatible with your existing Xbox game library."
There is no room for interpretation or half-truths there. All the games that you can play on your Xbox Series X/S right now, like Lost Odyssey, will be playable on the next Xbox. If that wasn't true, then the next Xbox wouldn't be "fully backwards compatible," as Microsoft themselves have confirmed.
So, no, it seems like it won't be like the ROG Xbox Ally, and it won't run PC versions of your existing Xbox consoles games.
Also, I don't recall Microsoft ever saying that Xbox Series X/S emulation on PC was not possible. I don't mean to be rude, but do you have a source for that information, if possible?
@Tasuki So then we should all be thankful for Randy Pitchford, because if he kept his mouth shut, we would be paying $80 in the US for Borderlands 4 right now lol.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner SE won't be taking any money from Sony anymore, lest they want to go bankrupt in the future. PC, Switch 2, and Xbox combined is a market too big to skip over. They've already confirmed as such.
There's also a bit of a contradiction in your logic; if Final Fantasy games don't sell on Xbox, then why is Sony even paying Square Enix and other publishers to keep games off Xbox to begin with? Surely those publishers would just skip Xbox willingly, without having to be bribed by Sony?
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I like how Phil said a few months ago, that he had to make one of two choices to keep the Xbox business sustainable: either price gouge the hell out of the existing Xbox playerbase, or put games on competing platforms. Phil said that he and MS were gonna do the latter, but it turns out they're doing both instead!
Not only are all Xbox games going multi-platform, but Xbox players are getting shafted with price increases, as well. So much for multi-platform saving the day.
@Weebleman Sony wouldn't want people to be subscribing to Game Pass on PlayStation to play Microsoft games, though. Notice how there isn't a single subscription service on PlayStation that offers AAA games on day-one. Ubisoft+ and EA Play are on PlayStation, but they don't offer day-one games, even though the former does on Xbox.
Sony would lose a lot of money if people could just subscribe to Game Pass on PlayStation to play the latest Call of Duty, Gears of War, Halo, Forza, etc. game. No cut from Game Pass subs would be enough to make up for the loss in revenue on Sony's end. Of course, it would be great for Microsoft, though.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner If a game is broken and buggy at launch, does that mean people are obligated to say they don't like it, even if they actually do? That isn't "encouraging the industry" to get away with things, that's sharing your true feelings about a game.
@Medic_alert I've become a big JRPG guy in recent years, and I only own an Xbox right now. This is partly thanks to Game Pass, and tbf most major JRPGs are releasing on Xbox these days.
I don't know why everyone is quickly taking this 22,000 sales number as fact, when Alinea Analytics popped out of nowhere last year and doesn't really have a big track record
EDIT: On Twitter, the guy from Alinea Analytics who provided this info said that he used the number of reviews on the Xbox store "for reference" to determine the amount of copies it's sold so far. Shows you shouldn't immediately believe everything you see online.
@dskatter Forza Horizon 5 is part of a tentpole Xbox exclusive franchise that no one ever thought would come to PlayStation. It's selling so well based on sheer novelty alone. Let's also not forget to mention the fact that Forza is way more popular than Final Fantasy; the game was on Game Pass, sure, but it had 40 million players on Xbox and PC before its PS5 launch.
Any game that's part of a tentpole exclusive franchise is gonna sell very well on a competing platform. God of War and Spider-Man would sell like gangbusters on Xbox, too, if Sony were to bring them over.
For reference, look at how well Death Stranding sold on Xbox, despite being a five year old game. Since it was formerly a Sony property, no one expected Death Stranding to come to Xbox. And yet, when it shadowdropped on Xbox with zero marketing, it still managed to claw its way to the #3 top paid spot on the Xbox store. The 50% discount likely helped, as well.
Square should really improve the resolution for this game on Series X, and they should add back the ability to change costumes. For some strange reason, the Xbox version of FF16 is the only one that doesn't let you change the costumes of the main characters.
Either way, I'm still enjoying the game and I'm glad it's finally on Xbox
@bazchillin I know that I shouldn't be judging games on graphics alone, but wow, do FF16's graphics look better than Stranger of Paradise's. Back when Stranger of Paradise came out, I thought it sucked that PlayStation got all the cool, graphically-impressive Final Fantasy games, and Xbox got the scraps like SoP.
No disrespect to Stranger of Paradise, btw. It seems like a good game, as well.
@Fiendish-Beaver There was no previous game, this is a new IP. You might be confusing this with Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty, another soulslike that was released day-one on Game Pass.
@bjs5667 Sony could easily screw over Microsoft in the future by demanding a 40% or even 50% cut out of all third-party game sales on PlayStation going forward. Microsoft, of course, isn't taking that into account as they kill their own platform. It's the same mistake they made with Windows Phone, and it's why Microsoft is unable to launch an Xbox mobile store.
@Balaam_ You pay for the experience, though. When you go to a movie theater, they don't hand out free discs after you finish watching a movie. You don't get to own the film, you just pay to experience it.
Same with amusement parks. When you spend hundreds of dollars to go to Disneyland for a few days, you do not get to own anything physically in exchange. You aren't allowed to buy the roller coasters or the theme park rides, you are just given the opportunity to experience them.
Game Pass, or really, any subscription service, works the same way.
And for the people saying exclusives don't provide competition, that is nonsense. I brought this up in an earlier comment of mine, but Demon Souls only exists because Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion was a timed Xbox exclusive. Sony panicked when they saw Microsoft secure such a big game as an exclusive, so they went to FromSoftware to give them a Western-style RPG. That RPG, of course, became Demon's Souls. Sony was upset that Demon's Souls was nothing like Oblivion, but still. The game got funding because Oblivion wasn't on PlayStation at the time.
If Elder Scrolls 6 was an Xbox exclusive like Morrowind and Oblivion were back in the day, it would have likely pushed Sony to innovate and make a move in the Western RPG market again.
@themightyant But there are games like Earthion, Neptunia, and Raidou Remastered that are getting physical Xbox releases, those are far more niche than Gears of War, yet they're being supported on Xbox.
It's not just a matter of business, Microsoft doesn't want Xbox gamers to play games physically or resell them. That's why Xbox is getting a code-in-a-box for Ninja Gaiden 4 and The Outer Worlds 2, while PlayStation is getting a disc.
Microsoft clearly values PlayStation players more than Xbox players.
@IOI I agree, but in a few years, every AAA game will be $80 across the board. People will gladly buy $80 video games once it becomes normalized. Not me, though.
The fact that PlayStation is getting a physical release for a Gears of War game but not Xbox is pathetic, Microsoft really hates Xbox players. At this rate, we will start seeing PlayStation exclusive Gears of War games.
Yes, they gave the game away for free for existing Ultimate Edition owners, but they should have given Xbox players the choice to buy physically if they want. Isn't that what Microsoft preaches? Giving consumers choice?
Will definitely buy SH2 Remake on Xbox as soon as I can, it's a shame we've had to wait a year, but as long as Konami doesn't pull a FF7 Remake on us, I'll be fine with it.
@Balaam_ No, the game referenced in the linked article is a title based on a licensed Konami IP, therefore it can't be Cronos: The New Dawn.
As stated in the article, Bloober's next game with Konami, codenamed Project G, is coming to PS5, Xbox Series X/S, and PC. Now, it doesn't explicitly say that Project G is a Silent Hill game, but I'm pretty sure that Silent Hill 1 remake is the only Konami game that Bloober is currently working on.
@baldursnate I personally wouldn't call South of Midnight a 6/10 game, especially since it has overwhelmingly positive reviews on Steam. Most people who have played it seemed to enjoy it a lot. Even Avowed is at least a 7/10 imo.
And I'm not sure I agree with the notion of not counting the games from studios that Xbox acquired as 'Xbox games.' If Sony randomly bought Capcom, I would definitely call all future Capcom games PlayStation first-party games. Because, in that scenario, it would be a fact. Not really up for debate.
And, plus, Xbox has owned Bethesda for nearly five years at this point, so it seems safe to call them an Xbox studio. Activision, on the other hand, is only releasing two games this year: Tony Hawk's and CoD. Take those two games away and Xbox's first-party lineup is still stacked to begin with.
The entire point of Microsoft acquiring studios was to make their first-party output bigger, but if we're not including the games from these studios as Xbox games, then what is the point?
2026 will be an amazing year for PlayStation because it will be the first year in the platform's history where it will receive new Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza games on day-one.
@baldursnate 2025 IS the year of Xbox, though, they're releasing, like, 12 new games. Problem is, it doesn't really matter anymore, because all of these games will come to PlayStation eventually.
@andrewsqual Honestly, how have you not been banned yet? Every single post you make on Pure Xbox has been blatant console war fodder and rage bait, nothing of substance really.
I'd say B-. It was a decent show, better than last year's. I'm willing to play most of the games they showed, but there were only a few titles that audibly made me say "wow." Like, the majority of the games at SGF were stuff that made me think "this looks cool, but I'm not dying to play it."
@theduckofdeath The only excuse people have, it seems, is insisting that Microsoft lied and were trying to save face, even though they never did anything like this with BG3.
"”….i mean as part of the same Weibo post your drawing from he also outright denied that there was any exclusivity deal with Sony so that really should be evidence enough."
Where did he say that? No one from Game Science has ever once said "no, we didn't sign an exclusivity deal with Sony." I looked at that Weibo post you're referring to, and there is nothing there that states as such.
I think the fact that Game Science has outright refused to clarify the issue is proof enough that there is an exclusivity deal for the game. Look at every other company that has been accused of taking a PS exclusivity bag. Larian, S-Game, etc. have all explicitly denied such accusations, but Game Science hasn't.
By the way, IGN asked Game Science back in August 2024 to comment on their report about them signing a deal with Sony, and Game Science didn't respond. So it's not like no one has asked them this question before.
"I suppose we can’t beat the “Sony is evil” drum if we apply logic, evidence and cultural nuance to a situation though."
This is a fair point, but we should be taking all evidence into consideration, not just the stuff that favors our arguments.
The biggest evidence against your point in my opinion is that Game Science's CEO said earlier this year that it would take "several years of optimization experience" to get Black Myth Wukong running on the Series S. It's a bit strange, then, that they were apparently able to get the matter resolved in not years, but months.
Is it possible that there is no exclusivity deal and that they chose August 30 just because of some cultural significance? Yeah, of course. But is it possible that they signed a one-year exclusivity deal for the game? That could be true, as well.
"The problem is when people push their opinions as objective facts just to further a console war narrative"
I don't mean to be rude, but maybe you're a little bit guilty of this yourself? While I don't think it's an objective fact that Sony signed an exclusivity deal for Black Myth, I think it's a bit dismissive to claim that this is a console war conspiracy theory or that there are no facts to back up said argument.
Like with the quote you brought up from Microsoft, I think there's only one way you can interpret that. "Its not due to issues that have been raised to us" This means that Game Science never informed them of any issues, not that Microsoft doesn't consider Series S optimization an issue or something (especially since they admitted that the S was to blame for Baldur's Gate 3's delay).
Also, regarding the part where you said Microsoft never explicitly said there is an exclusivity deal in place for Wukong, the same can be said for Game Science, as well. Contrary to what some people like to claim, Game Science has never outright said "no, we did not sign an exclusivity deal with Sony." They've only said that they had issues with the Series S. Both statements can be true, you know. They could have had trouble with the S, and they could have also taken an exclusivity deal.
I think the fact that Game Science hasn't put an end to this debate by explicitly denying the existence of a deal (which is what Larian Studios and S-Game, the developers of Phantom Blade Zero did), is proof enough that there is something going on behind the scenes.
Again, just want to reiterate that I don't think you're objectively wrong, or that you're a console warrior. I just personally feel like it would be a lot better if ppl didn't resort to labeling everything they don't agree with a conspiracy theory.
EDIT: By the way, the official quote from Microsoft was actually "it's not due to Xbox platform limitations that have been raised to us." Not sure how MS could claim that Series S optimization issues do not classify as Xbox platform limitations, or that MS doesn't believe it should be an issue.
Comments 400
Re: PS5's Stellar Blade Could Move To Switch 2, But What About Xbox?
I agree with the Sony isn't scared of Microsoft part. Sony definitely still views Xbox as competition, more so than they do Nintendo or PC IMO, but they aren't porting games to Xbox because they think of Microsoft as their fierce rival. Even though Microsoft doesn't think the same anymore.
Like you said, Sony doesn't really have an incentive to port games to Xbox at the moment, because they're direct competition. Sony, however, is okay with bringing some of their games to Switch and Switch 2 because they don't think it will harm their market dominance or brand image.
The only way I think Sony will ever willingly port games to Xbox is if Microsoft's multiplatform plan somehow works, and if Xbox still maintains the ~30 million console users it currently has, despite losing all exclusives. Maybe then Sony's shareholders will push PlayStation to port more of their games to Xbox and Switch 2, but that's still unlikely.
Re: Report: Xbox Working On Massive Backwards Compatibility Overhaul Called 'Xbox Classics'
@FraserG Thanks for the info! Hopefully it does involve new games, because if not, this wouldn't be that exciting for me, personally speaking.
Re: Report: Xbox Working On Massive Backwards Compatibility Overhaul Called 'Xbox Classics'
Does this include new games that aren't currently backwards compatible on Xbox, or does it only include existing back compat titles?
Re: PS5's Stellar Blade Could Move To Switch 2, But What About Xbox?
@wildcat_kickz Last thing I wanted to add is that, if the ABK deal never happened, Microsoft would have probably not gone multiplatform. At least not during this console generation. If they did go multiplatform, it would have probably happened like 5-10 years from now.
Re: PS5's Stellar Blade Could Move To Switch 2, But What About Xbox?
@wildcat_kickz Yes, Microsoft wants endless growth from their Xbox division. They would have still grown if they kept their games exclusive and followed through with their original plans, but it would have taken a longer time. Going multiplatform was the easiest and quickest way to make the most money, regardless of if it ends up being detrimental to Xbox in the long run.
Shareholders and Microsoft execs definitely do not care about console market paradigms. Satya said a few years ago, in fact, that he hates exclusives and that Xbox "had no choice" but to do them because Sony does exclusives, as well. Obviously, Satya must have forced Xbox's hand later on, because now Xbox has no exclusives.
I would argue that Microsoft would probably make more money in the long run by keeping all their games exclusive and forcing PlayStation and Nintendo players to buy an Xbox. Game Pass, in this scenario, would probably grow dramatically as well, because Xbox console sales would increase.
However, this would take a lot of time and effort to achieve, which Microsoft doesn't have the guts to do. In order to properly compete with PlayStation and Nintendo, Microsoft would have to get up off their butts and hire an actually competent marketing division, and they'd have to keep their consoles in stock worldwide, like PlayStation does.
All of this is too much of a hassle for Satya and the shareholders, so, of course, they chose the multiplatform pivot instead.
Re: PS5's Stellar Blade Could Move To Switch 2, But What About Xbox?
@wildcat_kickz I would disagree with the notion that you and @DennisReynolds have said about Microsoft NEEDING to change their business strategy. Microsoft did not NEED to go multiplatform, Xbox would not have gone bankrupt if they didn't put Halo/Gears/Forza on PlayStation this year.
There are a lot of similarities between Xbox and Sega, but the fate of their console divisions do differ in one notable way. Sega was bleeding cash near the end of the Dreamcast generation, their entire business was in the red since no one was buying their consoles or games (which was their only major source of revenue). Sega had no choice but to go multiplatform; otherwise, they would have gone bankrupt and closed their doors.
Xbox is not in the same position. Xbox consoles aren't selling well (they're still doing better than the Dreamcast), but the Xbox business as a whole was still successful, even before the multiplatform push. In 2023, for example, back when all Xbox games were still exclusive, Microsoft reported record-breaking revenue two times in a row for its Xbox division, in spite of underwhelming hardware sales.
Source 1: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-starfield-and-cloud-services-helped-microsoft-reach-a-record-breaking-quarter/1100-6518647/
Source 2: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/95919/xbox-delivers-historic-7-11-billion-revenue-in-holiday-2023/index.html
This shows that Xbox was, by no means, struggling in the same way that Sega was. Even if they kept all their games exclusive, Xbox was at no risk of going bankrupt in the future. In fact, their business would still be growing, but not at the fast-enough pace that Microsoft's shareholders desire.
At the end of the day, Xbox going multiplatform is not something that Microsoft NEEDED to do. It is something Microsoft chose to do, because, frankly, I think Microsoft is run by fools. Microsoft higher-ups do not understand the gaming industry, and they prioritize short-term gains over long-term wins. After spending $70 billion dollars on Activision, Microsoft took control of the Xbox division and decided they want to make money as fast as possible, regardless of if it kills their console division in the process.
The catalyst of Xbox going multiplatform is not "slow Xbox console sales" or "no one buys games on Xbox because of Game Pass," the catalyst is Xbox spending $70 billion on ABK and MS wanting that money back ASAP.
Re: 2K Not Following Microsoft & Nintendo With $80 Game Prices, For Now
@Tasuki I think the fact that Borderlands 4 is $80 in Europe and pretty much everywhere else except the U.S., makes me think that 2K was originally planning to charge $80 in the US, as well
Re: Xbox Emphasises That Its Next-Gen Devices 'Aren't Locked To A Single Store'
@InterceptorAlpha It says, "entire Xbox library," though. That includes OG Xbox and Xbox 360 games.
Either way, even if we're looking at Xbox Series games only, there are many Xbox Series X/S games that are not available on PC, nor are they Play Anywhere. Unicorn Overlord, GTA 6, Arcade Archives 2 Ridge Racer, MLB The Show, College Football, etc, are all on Xbox, but not on PC.
Like I said, "fully backwards compatible with your existing Xbox library" would entail all of these games, as well. There is no room for half-truths there. If it can't play these games, then this statement would be objectively wrong.
Either way, what you suggest wouldn't really make a lot of sense. The next Xbox will only be able to run PC versions of the games in our existing Xbox library? The only way that would be possible is if Microsoft makes all current Xbox games Xbox Play Anywhere compatible, which is never gonna happen.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Delivers Great FPS But 'Weird' Visuals On Xbox Series X
@Jenkinss That's definitely true.
I talked to some PlayStation fans on Push Square a few days ago, who thought that it was unfair for Microsoft to buy up studios and publishers for exclusivity. However, the reality of the situation is that Microsoft had no choice but to buy up studios and publishers in order to get compelling AAA Xbox exclusives.
They can't buy exclusivity from third-party developers constantly, like Sony can, since they would have to pay far more for exclusivity deals (and Game Pass deals, as well) compared to Sony. Plus, they also couldn't build tons of studios from the ground up and expect them to release amazing blockbuster IPs out of nowhere.
Buying publishers like Bethesda was pretty much the only feasible way for Microsoft to compete toe-to-toe with PlayStation for exclusivity. And, for the record, even though some PlayStation fans have complained that Microsoft has taken games away from PS players, Sony has taken far more compelling AAA third-party titles away from Xbox players than Microsoft ever has this generation. Most of MS's third-party exclusives have been AA or indie titles, at best, while Sony secures third-party AAA blockbuster after third-party AAA blockbuster exclusively for PlayStation.
Of course, none of this really matters anymore, since Xbox exclusive is an antiquated term now.
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Is Top Of The PS5 Pre-Order Charts Right Now
@J_Mo_Money Ubisoft+ does have day-one games on Xbox and PC, but it doesn't have day-one games on PlayStation. The only version of Ubisoft+ available on PlayStation is Ubisoft+ Classics, which only has old titles
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Is Top Of The PS5 Pre-Order Charts Right Now
@LogicStrikesAgain If hardly anyone bought Square Enix games on Xbox, then Square Enix wouldn't be in a rush to port all of their tentpole titles to Xbox. And before you bring up the FF16 Xbox sales report, it's important to note that that Alinea Analytics sales "report" was determined by counting the amount of reviews for FF16 on the Xbox store and comparing it to PS/Steam. In other words, it's wholly unreliable.
FF16 Complete Edition (the $70 version of the game) is currently the 11th best selling game on Xbox in the U.S. That, to me, suggests it's doing pretty good for a late port of a Final Fantasy game.
Re: Xbox Emphasises That Its Next-Gen Devices 'Aren't Locked To A Single Store'
@DarthVerde To be fair, there is a zero percent chance that the PS6 will be at the same price or less than the PS5 Pro. Chances are the PS6 will be a minimum $800 device, without a disc drive.
So the Xbox won't be too far ahead in price.
Re: Xbox Emphasises That Its Next-Gen Devices 'Aren't Locked To A Single Store'
@InterceptorAlpha Not sure where you're getting all this "form" stuff from.
In the description for the Xbox + AMD video, it explicitly says that the next Xbox is "fully compatible with your existing Xbox game library."
There is no room for interpretation or half-truths there. All the games that you can play on your Xbox Series X/S right now, like Lost Odyssey, will be playable on the next Xbox. If that wasn't true, then the next Xbox wouldn't be "fully backwards compatible," as Microsoft themselves have confirmed.
So, no, it seems like it won't be like the ROG Xbox Ally, and it won't run PC versions of your existing Xbox consoles games.
Also, I don't recall Microsoft ever saying that Xbox Series X/S emulation on PC was not possible. I don't mean to be rude, but do you have a source for that information, if possible?
Re: 2K Not Following Microsoft & Nintendo With $80 Game Prices, For Now
@Tasuki So then we should all be thankful for Randy Pitchford, because if he kept his mouth shut, we would be paying $80 in the US for Borderlands 4 right now lol.
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Is Top Of The PS5 Pre-Order Charts Right Now
@Weebleman Thank you!
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Delivers Great FPS But 'Weird' Visuals On Xbox Series X
@PsBoxSwitchOwner SE won't be taking any money from Sony anymore, lest they want to go bankrupt in the future. PC, Switch 2, and Xbox combined is a market too big to skip over. They've already confirmed as such.
There's also a bit of a contradiction in your logic; if Final Fantasy games don't sell on Xbox, then why is Sony even paying Square Enix and other publishers to keep games off Xbox to begin with? Surely those publishers would just skip Xbox willingly, without having to be bribed by Sony?
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Is Top Of The PS5 Pre-Order Charts Right Now
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I like how Phil said a few months ago, that he had to make one of two choices to keep the Xbox business sustainable: either price gouge the hell out of the existing Xbox playerbase, or put games on competing platforms. Phil said that he and MS were gonna do the latter, but it turns out they're doing both instead!
Not only are all Xbox games going multi-platform, but Xbox players are getting shafted with price increases, as well. So much for multi-platform saving the day.
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Is Top Of The PS5 Pre-Order Charts Right Now
@Weebleman Sony wouldn't want people to be subscribing to Game Pass on PlayStation to play Microsoft games, though. Notice how there isn't a single subscription service on PlayStation that offers AAA games on day-one. Ubisoft+ and EA Play are on PlayStation, but they don't offer day-one games, even though the former does on Xbox.
Sony would lose a lot of money if people could just subscribe to Game Pass on PlayStation to play the latest Call of Duty, Gears of War, Halo, Forza, etc. game. No cut from Game Pass subs would be enough to make up for the loss in revenue on Sony's end. Of course, it would be great for Microsoft, though.
Re: Hands On: Gears Of War Reloaded Beta - Great Gnasher Gibbings, But Overly Familiar On Xbox
Buying this on Xbox for $40 would be a scam, glad Microsoft is at least giving this away for free to existing owners of Ultimate Edition
Re: Hands On: Not Gonna Lie, I'm Enjoying MindsEye On Xbox Right Now
@PsBoxSwitchOwner If a game is broken and buggy at launch, does that mean people are obligated to say they don't like it, even if they actually do? That isn't "encouraging the industry" to get away with things, that's sharing your true feelings about a game.
Re: According To Sales Estimates, Final Fantasy 16 Had A Rough First Week On Xbox
@Medic_alert I've become a big JRPG guy in recent years, and I only own an Xbox right now. This is partly thanks to Game Pass, and tbf most major JRPGs are releasing on Xbox these days.
Re: According To Sales Estimates, Final Fantasy 16 Had A Rough First Week On Xbox
I don't know why everyone is quickly taking this 22,000 sales number as fact, when Alinea Analytics popped out of nowhere last year and doesn't really have a big track record
EDIT: On Twitter, the guy from Alinea Analytics who provided this info said that he used the number of reviews on the Xbox store "for reference" to determine the amount of copies it's sold so far. Shows you shouldn't immediately believe everything you see online.
Re: According To Sales Estimates, Final Fantasy 16 Had A Rough First Week On Xbox
@dskatter Forza Horizon 5 is part of a tentpole Xbox exclusive franchise that no one ever thought would come to PlayStation. It's selling so well based on sheer novelty alone. Let's also not forget to mention the fact that Forza is way more popular than Final Fantasy; the game was on Game Pass, sure, but it had 40 million players on Xbox and PC before its PS5 launch.
Any game that's part of a tentpole exclusive franchise is gonna sell very well on a competing platform. God of War and Spider-Man would sell like gangbusters on Xbox, too, if Sony were to bring them over.
For reference, look at how well Death Stranding sold on Xbox, despite being a five year old game. Since it was formerly a Sony property, no one expected Death Stranding to come to Xbox. And yet, when it shadowdropped on Xbox with zero marketing, it still managed to claw its way to the #3 top paid spot on the Xbox store. The 50% discount likely helped, as well.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/xbox/comments/1gppapl/death_stranding_is_the_3_top_paid_game_on_xbox/
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Delivers Great FPS But 'Weird' Visuals On Xbox Series X
@PsBoxSwitchOwner We probably shouldn't be taking sales reports from dubious sources like Alinea Analytics as fact right away
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Delivers Great FPS But 'Weird' Visuals On Xbox Series X
Square should really improve the resolution for this game on Series X, and they should add back the ability to change costumes. For some strange reason, the Xbox version of FF16 is the only one that doesn't let you change the costumes of the main characters.
Either way, I'm still enjoying the game and I'm glad it's finally on Xbox
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Delivers Great FPS But 'Weird' Visuals On Xbox Series X
@bazchillin I know that I shouldn't be judging games on graphics alone, but wow, do FF16's graphics look better than Stranger of Paradise's. Back when Stranger of Paradise came out, I thought it sucked that PlayStation got all the cool, graphically-impressive Final Fantasy games, and Xbox got the scraps like SoP.
No disrespect to Stranger of Paradise, btw. It seems like a good game, as well.
Re: Opinion: It Feels Like Microsoft Is Planning A Huge Final Year Of Xbox Series X|S In 2026
I got my Xbox in 2023 so it'd be a shame if the generation ended in 2027.
Re: Four Games Are Confirmed For Xbox Game Pass In July 2025 So Far
@Fiendish-Beaver There was no previous game, this is a new IP. You might be confusing this with Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty, another soulslike that was released day-one on Game Pass.
Re: PS5 Execs Questioned About Xbox 'Moving Away From Console' In Official Sony Interview
@bjs5667 Sony could easily screw over Microsoft in the future by demanding a 40% or even 50% cut out of all third-party game sales on PlayStation going forward. Microsoft, of course, isn't taking that into account as they kill their own platform. It's the same mistake they made with Windows Phone, and it's why Microsoft is unable to launch an Xbox mobile store.
Re: 'Subscription Price Increase' Tag Reportedly Added To Xbox Cloud Gaming Website
@Balaam_ You pay for the experience, though. When you go to a movie theater, they don't hand out free discs after you finish watching a movie. You don't get to own the film, you just pay to experience it.
Same with amusement parks. When you spend hundreds of dollars to go to Disneyland for a few days, you do not get to own anything physically in exchange. You aren't allowed to buy the roller coasters or the theme park rides, you are just given the opportunity to experience them.
Game Pass, or really, any subscription service, works the same way.
Re: PS5 Execs Questioned About Xbox 'Moving Away From Console' In Official Sony Interview
@Balaam_ First time I completely agree with you
And for the people saying exclusives don't provide competition, that is nonsense. I brought this up in an earlier comment of mine, but Demon Souls only exists because Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion was a timed Xbox exclusive. Sony panicked when they saw Microsoft secure such a big game as an exclusive, so they went to FromSoftware to give them a Western-style RPG. That RPG, of course, became Demon's Souls. Sony was upset that Demon's Souls was nothing like Oblivion, but still. The game got funding because Oblivion wasn't on PlayStation at the time.
If Elder Scrolls 6 was an Xbox exclusive like Morrowind and Oblivion were back in the day, it would have likely pushed Sony to innovate and make a move in the Western RPG market again.
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Physical Version Confirmed For PS5, Nothing Yet For Xbox
@themightyant But there are games like Earthion, Neptunia, and Raidou Remastered that are getting physical Xbox releases, those are far more niche than Gears of War, yet they're being supported on Xbox.
It's not just a matter of business, Microsoft doesn't want Xbox gamers to play games physically or resell them. That's why Xbox is getting a code-in-a-box for Ninja Gaiden 4 and The Outer Worlds 2, while PlayStation is getting a disc.
Microsoft clearly values PlayStation players more than Xbox players.
Re: Outer Worlds 2 Director Responds To Xbox's Expensive $80 Price Tag
@IOI I agree, but in a few years, every AAA game will be $80 across the board. People will gladly buy $80 video games once it becomes normalized. Not me, though.
Re: Gears Of War: Reloaded Physical Version Confirmed For PS5, Nothing Yet For Xbox
The fact that PlayStation is getting a physical release for a Gears of War game but not Xbox is pathetic, Microsoft really hates Xbox players. At this rate, we will start seeing PlayStation exclusive Gears of War games.
Yes, they gave the game away for free for existing Ultimate Edition owners, but they should have given Xbox players the choice to buy physically if they want. Isn't that what Microsoft preaches? Giving consumers choice?
Re: PSA: Silent Hill 2 Is Still Due For Xbox Once PS5 Exclusivity Window Expires
Will definitely buy SH2 Remake on Xbox as soon as I can, it's a shame we've had to wait a year, but as long as Konami doesn't pull a FF7 Remake on us, I'll be fine with it.
Re: Silent Hill 1 Remake Announced, And We Think It's Coming To Xbox
@Balaam_ No, the game referenced in the linked article is a title based on a licensed Konami IP, therefore it can't be Cronos: The New Dawn.
As stated in the article, Bloober's next game with Konami, codenamed Project G, is coming to PS5, Xbox Series X/S, and PC. Now, it doesn't explicitly say that Project G is a Silent Hill game, but I'm pretty sure that Silent Hill 1 remake is the only Konami game that Bloober is currently working on.
Re: Phil Spencer Says 2026 Is Going To Be 'A Really Special Year' For Xbox
@baldursnate I personally wouldn't call South of Midnight a 6/10 game, especially since it has overwhelmingly positive reviews on Steam. Most people who have played it seemed to enjoy it a lot. Even Avowed is at least a 7/10 imo.
And I'm not sure I agree with the notion of not counting the games from studios that Xbox acquired as 'Xbox games.' If Sony randomly bought Capcom, I would definitely call all future Capcom games PlayStation first-party games. Because, in that scenario, it would be a fact. Not really up for debate.
And, plus, Xbox has owned Bethesda for nearly five years at this point, so it seems safe to call them an Xbox studio. Activision, on the other hand, is only releasing two games this year: Tony Hawk's and CoD. Take those two games away and Xbox's first-party lineup is still stacked to begin with.
The entire point of Microsoft acquiring studios was to make their first-party output bigger, but if we're not including the games from these studios as Xbox games, then what is the point?
Re: Phil Spencer Says 2026 Is Going To Be 'A Really Special Year' For Xbox
2026 will be an amazing year for PlayStation because it will be the first year in the platform's history where it will receive new Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza games on day-one.
Re: Phil Spencer Says 2026 Is Going To Be 'A Really Special Year' For Xbox
@Valhura Not sure how you can look at Clockwork Revolution and call it dated, most people agreed that it looked amazing
Re: Phil Spencer Says 2026 Is Going To Be 'A Really Special Year' For Xbox
@baldursnate 2025 IS the year of Xbox, though, they're releasing, like, 12 new games. Problem is, it doesn't really matter anymore, because all of these games will come to PlayStation eventually.
Re: Multiple Final Fantasy Games Confirmed For Xbox, Including A Shadow Drop Today
@andrewsqual Honestly, how have you not been banned yet? Every single post you make on Pure Xbox has been blatant console war fodder and rage bait, nothing of substance really.
Re: Square Enix Unveils 'Possibly' The Largest Xbox Series X Ever Made
@Techno92LFC They don't, they're just stuck there for eternity
Re: Xbox Officially Has Its First $80 Game, And It Won't Be The Last
@somnambulance Microsoft's first $70 game was Redfall, so it's not that surprising
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade The Summer Game Fest 2025 Showcase?
I'd say B-. It was a decent show, better than last year's. I'm willing to play most of the games they showed, but there were only a few titles that audibly made me say "wow." Like, the majority of the games at SGF were stuff that made me think "this looks cool, but I'm not dying to play it."
Re: RGG Studio's New Game Is Called 'Stranger Than Heaven', And It Looks Suitably Awesome
Second best reveal at Summer Game Fest, behind RE9. I wasn't that interested in the game with the first trailer, but this new trailer blew me away.
Re: Surprise! Black Myth: Wukong Finally Has A Release Date For Xbox
@theduckofdeath The only excuse people have, it seems, is insisting that Microsoft lied and were trying to save face, even though they never did anything like this with BG3.
Nice duck username, btw.
Re: Surprise! Black Myth: Wukong Finally Has A Release Date For Xbox
@GeeEssEff
"”….i mean as part of the same Weibo post your drawing from he also outright denied that there was any exclusivity deal with Sony so that really should be evidence enough."
Where did he say that? No one from Game Science has ever once said "no, we didn't sign an exclusivity deal with Sony." I looked at that Weibo post you're referring to, and there is nothing there that states as such.
I think the fact that Game Science has outright refused to clarify the issue is proof enough that there is an exclusivity deal for the game. Look at every other company that has been accused of taking a PS exclusivity bag. Larian, S-Game, etc. have all explicitly denied such accusations, but Game Science hasn't.
By the way, IGN asked Game Science back in August 2024 to comment on their report about them signing a deal with Sony, and Game Science didn't respond. So it's not like no one has asked them this question before.
Sources: https://www.ign.com/articles/black-myth-wukong-xbox-delay-due-to-sony-exclusivity-deal-not-tech-issues-according-to-source
https://weibo.com/6603744955/P7ANY0vxd
Re: Surprise! Black Myth: Wukong Finally Has A Release Date For Xbox
@Ricky-Spanish Definitely seems real enough to me lol
Re: Surprise! Black Myth: Wukong Finally Has A Release Date For Xbox
@GeeEssEff
"I suppose we can’t beat the “Sony is evil” drum if we apply logic, evidence and cultural nuance to a situation though."
This is a fair point, but we should be taking all evidence into consideration, not just the stuff that favors our arguments.
The biggest evidence against your point in my opinion is that Game Science's CEO said earlier this year that it would take "several years of optimization experience" to get Black Myth Wukong running on the Series S. It's a bit strange, then, that they were apparently able to get the matter resolved in not years, but months.
Is it possible that there is no exclusivity deal and that they chose August 30 just because of some cultural significance? Yeah, of course. But is it possible that they signed a one-year exclusivity deal for the game? That could be true, as well.
Re: Surprise! Black Myth: Wukong Finally Has A Release Date For Xbox
@Ilyn
"The problem is when people push their opinions as objective facts just to further a console war narrative"
I don't mean to be rude, but maybe you're a little bit guilty of this yourself? While I don't think it's an objective fact that Sony signed an exclusivity deal for Black Myth, I think it's a bit dismissive to claim that this is a console war conspiracy theory or that there are no facts to back up said argument.
Like with the quote you brought up from Microsoft, I think there's only one way you can interpret that. "Its not due to issues that have been raised to us" This means that Game Science never informed them of any issues, not that Microsoft doesn't consider Series S optimization an issue or something (especially since they admitted that the S was to blame for Baldur's Gate 3's delay).
Also, regarding the part where you said Microsoft never explicitly said there is an exclusivity deal in place for Wukong, the same can be said for Game Science, as well. Contrary to what some people like to claim, Game Science has never outright said "no, we did not sign an exclusivity deal with Sony." They've only said that they had issues with the Series S. Both statements can be true, you know. They could have had trouble with the S, and they could have also taken an exclusivity deal.
I think the fact that Game Science hasn't put an end to this debate by explicitly denying the existence of a deal (which is what Larian Studios and S-Game, the developers of Phantom Blade Zero did), is proof enough that there is something going on behind the scenes.
Again, just want to reiterate that I don't think you're objectively wrong, or that you're a console warrior. I just personally feel like it would be a lot better if ppl didn't resort to labeling everything they don't agree with a conspiracy theory.
EDIT: By the way, the official quote from Microsoft was actually "it's not due to Xbox platform limitations that have been raised to us." Not sure how MS could claim that Series S optimization issues do not classify as Xbox platform limitations, or that MS doesn't believe it should be an issue.