WildConcept6

@Fiendish-Beaver The issue here is that you cha still gift any game. At most it'd have to be a filter. I imagine some people really like it when games they own go on sale, because they want to gift those games to friends.

"AI" (or what we're calling AI) would be genuinely useful here without taking away any jobs. Build a smarter Microsoft Store that responds to these issues in real time: cracking down on these disingenuous bundles is a good start, but there's so many legitimate issues that this doesn't address. For example, if gaming copilot in the MS store could automatically build DLC bundles with a discount — literally something Steam already does — that'd be awesome. It could also just generally curate the store better to my personalized tastes. Then after that Xbox just needs to impose stricter review rules. At the very least we need a minimum number of hours and for the review to show how many hours and achievements a player has in a game. We also need a crackdown on reviews that have nothing to do with the game and are trying to be cute or are straight spreading hate speech against minority groups. No matter how you feel about certain things, the Xbox review section is not any individual's place to expression those opinions (be they positive or negative). They could also throw in some stuff incentivize more detailed reviews (like a template with sections (for gameplay, performance, bugs, and whatever) that if you properly fill out you get 5 reward points or something). The store in general needs an overhaul. That this isn't a uniquely Xbox problem doesn't mean Microsoft shouldn't be swift to tackle it. In fact they'd do a lot to gain points from gamers by building the best storefront on Windows and Xbox and that'd invite more developers and publishers.

@ValentineMeikin I'd say Nintendo and patents are separate events (separate awful events). Playstation and Xbox were always inevitably going to end like this. Exclusives were never sustainable and consoles don't have much projected growth. Eventually Nintendo will too, just later (much latter if they can get away with $80 games for their dev budgets). The big nail in the coffin has actually been the forever games and fight for the attention economy. Fortnite and GTA V have had a bigger role in determining the future of the industry. While Xbox and Sony were still trying to fight the console wars, forever games took over. The fact that like half of Sony's PS Platform revenue come from the same 10 games they don't own is why they're putting games like Helldivers 2 out and I imagine why they want it on Xbox.

@Questionable_Duck Yeah, it's worth noting that gaming is in the same entertainment sector as movies & tv and music. Sony wouldn't be making any of these comments in a vacuum. EVERYTHING in the entertainment industries are moving to be more consumer centric and to meet consumers where they are. Sony's wider company culture and strategy is going to determine how they lead Playstation. Just like is the case for Microsoft. Microsoft has always said they want to be software focused, put their software everywhere, and empower their users across devices. This quickly became Xbox's messaging once they started porting to PC. Sony isn't going to steer their fleet in one direction and let the Playstation ship break off and go backwards.

Man I wish this was the standard for every game this generation. 120fps performance mode and 4k60fps graphics/quality mode. And as a Series S owner I'm more than happy with a solid 60fps at 1080p or whatever. It's all the games struggling to his a stable 30fps on series X hardware this gen that got me crying.

It's been talked about a lot on this site recently — I know I've talked about it a lot — but Sony really isn't fundamentally that different from Microsoft: both companies are for profit public stock companies that are obligated to bring returns on the investments made by shareholders (the real owners of the company). Every decision they make will always be predicated on that same reality. Sony exists in the same industry as everyone else; they are NOT immune to the stagnant console market, rising cost of development, or increasingly difficult fight in the attention economy. The only difference is that they're a more consumer hardware focused business than Microsoft. Even then this is a hardly surprising comment. It started with PC and expanded from there. I missed this but apparently last year Sony changed Playstation PC, LLC to Playstation Publishing, LLC. I'll also say the gaming industry is quite late to this strategy shift that focuses more on the consumer and reaching/servicing them where they are. Most other industries have long since moved to this ideology. One of the few good things about digital platforms is that they put us, consumers, at the forefront. This is what gamers deserve. We deserve to be at the center of gaming.

@Kaloudz 100%. Sony's statement says it all. They're moving from a strategy centered around hardware to one centered around their users. That change puts gamers more in control. It's also a change that Sony, and the gaming industry overall, is late to adopt. It's really unfortunate how it's gone. The console wars did their job well. Now people are fighting tooth and claw to be treated worse as a consumers.

@Cakefish Stellar Blade would be more in the partner publisher bucket which is already getting quite full (MLB the Show, Death Stranding, Everybody's Golf, Lego Horizons). Heck, Stellar Blade was initially announced for Xbox and last gen consoles. That only changed after they got a publishing deal with Sony to help get the game out the door. But it'd honestly be less surprising than Helldivers 2 if Stellar Blade got an Xbox port. Helldivers is a fully owned PS IP made by an independent studio. Stellar Blade is an IP owned AND developed by an independent studio; Sony just published it. They have significantly less control over it than they do Helldivers 2.

@HonestHick On Spider-Man, people bring that up because Sony doesn't own the IP. Really it's been a non-zero possibility since MLB forcibly decided to put MLB the Show on Xbox and later Nintendo Switch. To add additional perspective, Indiana Jones was only exclusive for any amount of time because Xbox went to Disney and renegotiated the licensing contract. The owner of the IP ultimately has control when it comes to licensed games. Sony owns the exclusive movie rights to Spider-Man, but that's it. Marvel (Disney) still owns the IP, and if Marvel (Disney) decides they want Spider-Man on Xbox or Nintendo Switch (the Switch 2 could handle the first game easily, probably Miles Morales too) then Playstation's only choice would be to either comply and let Marvel (Disney) publish the game on Xbox, or Playstation could choose to not make Spider-Man. That's it. The very most they could is try to leverage Spider-Man in the MCU, but considering how much money those movies make both parties and how little money Sony's own attempt at a Spider-Man cinematic universe that'd be a bluff at best. It'd be like threatening to shoot your own leg to try and stop someone from selling your game to more people.

Speaking of, if we're working under the assumption that Sony doesn't want their single player games on Xbox, then they should be VERY cautious with their Marvel games. They don't own Spider-Man or Wolverine and could at any point be told those games are going on Xbox or not being made at all. When that happens it won't matter to gamers who made the decision (Disney or Sony), because all they'll see is Playstation porting a single player exclusive, that in some ways has become a console mascot, to Xbox. Most gamers don't follow stuff this closely or are even fully aware of who knows what. And the industry is changing independently of Playstation. So many third parties have abandoned console exclusivity because it doesn't benefit them; it hardly even benefits PS anymore. The fact that now even Playstation has caved and is porting their their Helldivers 2 under their own name, just furthers the question of how long Disney, of all companies wait before demanding to make more money. Console sales don't help Disney. Disney doesn't get a 30% cut from every purchase PS users make. We go back and forth on which games are system sellers, but the entire concept is meaningless to Disney. All they care about are game sales and how financially lucrative the contract is for them. And if Square isn't willing to take console exclusive deals for the loss in sales anymore, MLB is forcing Sony to develop MLB the Show for all platforms, and now Sony themselves are putting Helldivers 2 on Xbox to maximize profit margins, then how long does DISNEY not insist on more money?

@PartyMarty If you're at all worried you can cancel and just do the pre-order over again. Part of me wants to say that gift cards are charged immediately, not when the game releases. But the last time I used a gift card for a pre-order was a LONG time ago.

@Fiendish-Beaver I'm not Sony. I don't have all the data on Playstation, but based on the sales charts... are the single player games system sellers? Based on how Sony chose to invest in live service games more than their single player "system sellers", does Sony think they're system sellers?

If that's what Sony wants the perception of what's happening to be then they aren't doing a very good job. Just ask their own fans 🤷🏾‍♂️. It wouldn't be that difficult of a perception to create either. They could make a public statement that only put it on Xbox to please Arrowhead or make Arrowhead publish it on Xbox through a different publisher or scrub "Xbox" from that job listing or make some cheeky comment on any social media account. Like I said, someone in charge wants Sony to have the credit of not just putting the game on Xbox, but wanting the game on Xbox. And they aren't doing anything to make that sound like it's a bad thing or done out of pity. They aren't even being haughty. They're porting their most successful game in a long while and also making public comments (and posting public jobs) about treating gaming as an ecosystem beyond PS hardware. Again, if they want this to look or even feel like they're throwing Xbox a bone and saying "good boy" then they aren't doing a good job. And otherwise I'd say personally, if we're digging THAT deep into what's going on behind the scenes (like the intentions of a business beyond "they want more money") then I'd suggest pulling back. That's getting into conspiracy territory and at least stuff we'll never truly know what's what about. Like we'd need to get into Playstation's executive board meeting and then use a mind reading device. I don't presume to know how Playstation views anything, but we do know how they are allowing themselves to be viewed.

@Kaloudz You don't understand. It's different because Sony is umm... the market leader and selling more consoles, so the fact that they "gave up" and are moving away from a hardware approach means that they... should be liked more? I guess. Is that how that works? It's LESS concerning when the company that sells more hardware publicly states that hardware sales won't sustain their business?

@J_Mo_Money You don't need a PS5 this gen to enjoy their games. The definition of "exclusive" has changed so much in the span of like 10 years as certain fans get obsessed with pearl clutching.

Man, modern Bungie is such a shadow of its former self. I remember so many people fed up with 343 asking for Bungie to take over Halo again, and I'm so glad that never came close to happening. 343/Halo Studios has their problems, but this is on a whole nother level. Bungie just straight up bamboozled Sony. Like seriously. Sony bought them for help with their live service plans, and now the studio is struggling so much that Sony is having to take the reins just to get a mess of a game out the door? WTH?? Isn't this kind of a nightmare scenario for Sony? They paid like over 3 billion for Bungie and a big reason is gone down the gutter. Worse than that, Sony now has to spend resources just to keep Bungie afloat now. They got stuck with dead weight that's proven to be terrible at the one thing it was bought for, and now they have to keep dragging it around everywhere. I would not be surprised if they cut their losses and sell off Bungie to someone else after Marathon inevitably fails. Or heck, maybe Bungie gets shuttered entirely or just turned into a support studio.

It's nothing that surprising and I could have seen this happening with or without the layoffs. Forza Motorsport was always intended to be a really long live service title. It's just the the game didn't do well on launch, so support gets scaled back a little. It's not that different from Halo Infinite except with the added reality that Forza has a spinoff, Forza Horizon, which has overtaken Motorsport in popularity by a long mile. Most likely it'll just be a while before we see a brand new Motorsport title as the franchise (Xbox) will put more resources toward the more successful Horizon titles.

@JayJ The last statement was that they had 40 projects in active development. And there have been 3 announced game cancelations (Everwild, Perfect Dark, and this (kinda, the language is a bit more dubious)). And 2 more unannounced game cancelations. I err on the side of not being hyperbolic that these games we literally never saw after their initial CGI announcement trailer are being canceled. For the two that are officially canceled and don't use vague language, it's been 6 or 7 years since the project started and 5+ since it was announced. Xbox Game Studios alone has as many more new games slated to come out (so not counting Avowed and South of Midnight) for the remainder of this year. And Xbox as a whole has many more first party titles. 2026 also already has a lot ready to come out, which I'm not too worried about because we've actually seen gameplay for them when they were announced. And really that's how this should've been done in the first place. Ninja Gaiden 4 was announced this year and it's coming THIS YEAR. Xbox seems to have learned their lesson from announcing games way too early in development (when development hasn't even really started yet and the team is still in pre production discussing general game design).

You know I'm gonna be real, I never really knew this game existed. I saw insiders talk about it, but I didn't remember the original trailer from whatever Xbox showcase. And I don't remember it like EVER resurfacing. Even Perfect Dark at least got that trailer year so we could remember it existed. And it was pretty frequently brought up by journslists (usually about how dev work is going poorly or how it got rebooted again or studio leadership changes). Contraband and Avalanche I only really saw talked about on forums and podcasts.

Though that said, it still doesn't seem like it's axed axed. From the looks either Xbox and Avalanche are in negotiations or Xbox has pulled back after being unhappy when the project cycle and Avalanche is looking for other routes to publish the game. Or maybe both parties still want to do it but there's just been some roadblock that's halting development. Avalanche is an independent studio, so if they're having problems getting the game out the door then it might be more financially sound for them to pursue other projects.

Fantastic! After Doom the Dark Ages finishes it's expansions, we really need a Hexen or Quake reboot in the vein of Doom 2016. Also wow. I knew Hexen was made by Raven Software, but not that it was published by iD. Crazy how that's all worked out.

@Fiendish-Beaver The takeaway I get from this news is that someone in charge wants Sony, not Arrowhead, to take the credit for WANTING Helldivers on Xbox. Sony has had plenty of time to comment and bring about a different narrative. And there were other ways for Arrowhead to take the blame (from the perspective of PS gamers who don't like this) while also showing gratitude to their publisher. That's a paradigm shift compared to just 10 years ago when Playstation was fighting claw and fang against cross-play. I don't think Sony is the type of company to make these decisions based on rumors. There's no official news that Steam will be on the next Xbox or what the next Xbox will even be and if MS was sharing this information on the downlow with Sony then it'd have been leaked by now (Microsoft has more holes than that one movie named "Holes"). Plus Helldivers 2 would take longer to port than the months between now and that AMD announcement. We really should've caught on last year when they changed from Playstation PC as their port publishing arm to Playstation Publishing. These decisions haven't been made lightly or on a whim, and I certainly don't think they are happening due to a rumor with little actual official evidence to back it up.

@Fiendish-Beaver
That's all to say, it's arguably a bigger deal if Sony is willing to part with their successful live service multiplayer games so soon after release. It hasn't even been 2 years since Helldivers 2. And like I said, perceptions do matter. There's the view that live service games hold less importance than single player prestigious titles, but that doesn't feel exactly right to me when we know which one most gamers enjoy more. Multiplayer games build community and have major staying power. Those are the games that built the console wars. Even on PS. You bought a PS for God of War or Final Fantasy and then you made your friends buy a Playstation to play COD or GTA V. On Xbox you just straight up bought for Halo and then you kept playing Halo or eventually Sea of Thieves or Forza Horizon. That's all gone now and the software sales have outgrown the restraints of hardware sales. Forza Horizon 5 can sell 3 million copies on PS in a few months, but it can't make 3 million Playstation users switch to Xbox. Maybe a number in the thousands or hundred thousands or heck we can be delusional and say a million. In any case Microsoft sees greater financial benefit bringing it to all platforms. This is what we're seeing from Playstation now, and I would think them porting live service titles so soon would be a bigger deal than 3+ year old single player games that are already on PC.

@Fiendish-Beaver I mean, porting live service games to help them succeed still shows a SIGNIFICANT change in the industry. Arguably it's bigger than porting single player. The psychology behind exclusives has always been more in making your friends play on the same platform than anything else. I don't think it's wild to say that the single player brought people into Playstation, but it was really the lack of cross-play that made them stay. Games like COD have ALWAYS been the best sellers on PS by a long mile. And the best sellers on Xbox and PC. And cross-play didn't become standard until late last gen with Sony dragging their feet. In a post cross-play world, first party live service exclusives are the only way to maintain that mentality of using gamers to convert other gamers into PS customers.

In 2001, the original Xbox thrived on multiplayer games and the only difference from today's live service are Microtransactions and longer updates. Helldivers 2 in essence is not that different from your Halo Multiplayer or Gears Multiplayer. Those games could've ALWAYS benefited from larger audiences. And yet back then they'd never be the case because that was how you sold systems.

To me an exclusive really good live service multiplayer game, has far more power than an exclusive linear narrative driven single player game. And Sony's own data lines up with this. The best selling and most played games on their platform are nearly all live service multiplayer games (just ones they don't own, which is their problem). COD becoming Xbox exclusive probably would've been the last chance at MAJOR market share stealing because gamers would want to play it with their friends, so some people would switch in masses. That's where the console wars even come from. Xbox vs Playstation was about making everyone switch to your preferred platform so that you could all play together. It was about making sure that your platform had the best multiplayer population to make sure you got the most enjoyment out of it. But it would also cause COD to lose massive amounts of money from the loss in player base and the loss in prestige (less people to play with on Xbox & PC). 10, 15, and definitely 20 years ago if Xbox owned COD they'd take that hit for the console sales. Sony would too. Today? Today it just doesn't matter. All multiplayer games are cross-platform and that's the norm so the biggest reason gamers have to convert each other to the same platform is gone. Most gamers chose their systems last generation and are just upgrading now. And it matters even less when most games, including a lot of the biggest, are either still on last gen or getting last gen releases. If exclusives still mattered as much as they did 10+ years ago, I really think Helldivers 2 and other great live service titles would be MORE important than your God of War or Horizon. Forza Horizon 5 (god I put those too close) sold three million copies on PS and topped charts as a four year old game. Clearly Playstation gamers want it MORE than their own single player exclusives, but none of them switched platforms for it, and they were never going to. Some probably didn't even know it existed until it launched on PS5. Everyone is in their walled gardens and no one really cares because most people are playing the same handful of games that support every platform known to man.

@Old_Man_Harper I think it was inevitable, but all the live service failures, not just Concord, accelerated the timeline. From the way it seemed, live service and mobile was THE strategy to deal with the shrinking margins and stalled console market. That was the big promise they made to shareholders. And internally they invested so much into live service. I think they wanted that to succeed to make more money from PS gamers and start to grow slowly on PC without making any waves. But then like all their projects just went up in smoke. So many unannounced games were canceled and like only Helldivers 2 and GT7 kinda succeeded. They just gave up on mobile and kept burning money for live service. Concord was a waste. Bungie as a whole was a waste with Marathon being a joke.

Sony fundamentally isn't that different from Microsoft on a business level. Both are publicly traded for profit companies that primarily answer to their shareholders. Sony has an obligation to provide as much return on investment (value) to their shareholders as possible. As the industry changes, it makes sense that this includes an evolving strategy and one that we're seeing across the board. More games available to more gamers helps everyone. Playstation has been trying to grow as a publisher this whole generation. That's why they put so much money into live service and bought Bungie and bought so many other studios and keep porting to PC and started licensing Out IP or choosing to launch games on Switch. And it's why they want Helldivers 2 on Xbox. And it's why Microsoft wants their games on more platforms including PS. Margins are tough and few can get away with Nintendo prices for Nintendo game budget costs.

@Fiendish-Beaver I mean I feel like that's just as big of story though. The comment as is makes it sound like Arrowhead wasn't involved in the decision at ALL until after Sony made it at which point it sounds like Arrowhead was in full support. Is this true? Well, it doesn't matter does it? We'll never truly know what's going on behind the scenes, but now the public image is that Sony is 100% the one that WANTED Helldivers 2 on Xbox.

This doesn't win Sony any good graces or publicity stunts with their customers. Some hard core Sony gamers have been crashing out over Helldivers 2 on Xbox and the idea that it's only happening because "Arrowhead asked for it and Sony is pleasing their partner." was a major excuse used to downplay the situation. Now Arrowhead is publicly saying to their fans, "No, it was all Sony's decision and we just supported them after they made that decision." Arguably that's more huge even if it's a lie. Perceptions matter. And in business perception is far more powerful than truth. That either Arrowhead or Sony would push the perception (be it true or not) that Sony WANTED to publish on Xbox (as in Sony independently directly made the choice) is more powerful than the truth whatever it may be.

If Arrowhead just wanted to endear Sony then they could've said, "Yes. We're so glad that Sony fulfilled this request of ours." That would've been major butt kissing to Sony (well, standard business butt kissing) and put the brunt of the port on Arrowhead. All of a sudden this isn't a major decision Sony is making about multiplatform releases, but instead a bone Sony is throwing Xbox out of kindness toward Arrowhead. The perception would then firmly shift to being less like the "It's just four games" Xbox moment to Xbox porting Ori to Switch to please the devs. But they didn't say that and now perception is going to move a lot closer to the idea that Sony wants to put their games on Xbox. And that being the perception will affect more games coming over.

@themightyant I mean probably and next gen is either next year or 2027, so not a long wait. But HOPIUM 😭

Oh, are these native now? I remember Microsoft announcing a while back that they were adding Ubisoft games to the MS store on PC, but they were just like placeholders and you still needed to use the Ubisoft PC app to download and play the games. If Ubisoft is adding native versions of their game to the Xbox PC App/Microsoft Store though, that's huge on a few levels. It'd be a massive milestone for the Microsoft Store in securing publisher support. It also paves a way for future Ubisoft games to possibly be Xbox Play Anywhere. I'd given up on Microsoft courting the likes of Ubisoft and EA to have native PC store versions and not make you use their launcher.

Waiting for the Elite 3 to pop out. I wouldn't even care about build qualtiy. In fact I'm going to suckle on the hopium that it was down specifically to prepare for an Elite 3 launch this holiday 🤥.

@GuyinPA75 The problem isn't even Nadella, it's the whole darn system. A CEO is encouraged, and in some ways legally obligated, to cater the company to the whims of the shareholders who only care about short term gains in their investment. This makes a lot of the biggest companies more speculation focused than anything. And it works for investors. Microsoft is the second most valuable company in the world at nearly a 4 trillion USD company by stock market capitalization. That's insane. Even more so when their market cap wasn't even 2 trillion 5 years ago. And it comes at the expense of what shareholders don't care about (i.e. The working class and long term sustainability in and CERTAINLY gaming).

"defined job descriptions and a fair promotions process"
What in the blazes is wrong with the gaming industry when it comes to the employee environment? I mean granted news of "all is great" usually doesn't do rounds, but it really sounds like no man's land out there. Like this is some 1800/1900s crap that needs to get exposed in a book titled "The Jungle".

Yay? Well, I guess it could be great if they put the right love into the games. But I thought EA said a while back they were scaling back on licensed IP games and focusing more on their own franchises? I guess they just follow the money. Which I mean, fair. Everyone does.

Ton of fighting games this and next year!

I know Rare didn't layoff themselves nor did the marketing teams at Xbox, but boy does this apple taste a little rotten right now. I was waiting for Everwild too. Would've been perfect if it had launched this year.

@Fiendish-Beaver Fair enough. I can't say I have much skin the game. Every recent PS exclusive I remotely care about I've been able to play since I bought my Steam Deck, and I still can now that I own a windows handheld PC.

I'm not saying that Nintendo isn't getting ports. What I am saying is that there's nothing to suggest that Sony is prioritizing or depriotizing any one platform over the other. The only evidence is word choice and word count of a job description for the senior manager of seemingly a new team. That's like less than nothing when it comes to what specific games will come over. I don't know what's on the table, and rather I think the table is completely blank (and maybe not even put together yet). It'll be this team's job to put together the reports that get games on the table. They'll do the analytics, tell Playstation what should be ported where and why, then it'll be us to PS leadership to decide. I mean going back to the job posting, Nintendo could've disappeared for any reason, but what makes sense to me is just that Xbox & PC "could" support the full PS slate. Everything would be an option and this team would have free reign to explore those options, gather the data, and present it to the other execs. With Nintendo everything isn't an option. Its also might not be as involved a process in porting to Nintendo. Maybe Sony is already fine with porting to Nintendo and they don't need teams to research the process and potential gains and losses. Like you said, only Sony knows, but also I'm not sure they know right now.

@TrollOfWar I'll also add, for the sake of speculation, that I think the idea of "Xbox leaving the console space" is kinda a pointless notion as of now. Take a look at the recent top 10 chart from Playstation, how many of those games are still available for purchase on the Xbox One? And/or still receiving updates? Heck, Black Ops 6 is a new release that was cross gen day one. Last gen has held on for at least 12 years now. This Gen will hold on at least that long and Xbox has confirmed a new native console that should be coming in 2026 or 2027 (most likely). I think by the time those consoles lose support, we might be looking at the need of consoles as we know it in general. I don't know. The number of years between then and now is honestly scary to think about. Regardless, I don't think Sony has it in their plans to run Xbox out of the console market because it'd be like a decade until that could even see any results. And in that time Sony would have just lost money by not porting to Xbox. And that is another thing. In business you learn to count money you could have earned but didn't as a loss. The industry has clearly moved past the idea that porting an exclusive means defeat, so now for Sony it's a matter of what would they lose by porting vs what would they lose by not porting.

@TrollOfWar To make my stance clear
1) I don't think Sony is directly making these moves to calculate Xbox's demise or prolong it's life; I think that Sony is looking at the data, seeing the console market's overall stunted growth, and seeing the numbers they don't think PS as a business will disappear overnight from doing more multiplatform games.

2) At the risk of rendering this entire discussion moot (risk because it's fun to muse), I don't think anyone can accurately even guess what games will be coming over right now. Because I'm fairly certain Sony has no idea. Going back to the job description, it's not a single position. I mean it is a single position, but it makes it clear that this major new leadership role will be a leading a team. What's also made clear is that this job is about financials, data analytics, and making reports about how to achieve success across platforms through basically every stage of the product lifecycle. It's a job about marketing strategies and data anyalstics. And it's a job that is very telling in that it doesn't currently exist (or isn't currently filled) at SIE/Playstation/whatever. I think that Sony will hire for this job, build up this team, and listen very intently to the reports they make. Questions like, "How much could we lose in console sales/user aquistion by porting XYZ game vs how much could we gain in software sales by expanding to XYZ platform?" are going to be the focus of this group. And I don't think that anything is off limits or a no brainer. Data doesn't care for the vocal minority that's very loud about console exclusives, and what we know as outsiders looking in heavily suggests that exclusives aren't selling consoles anymore. Xbox is ramping up multiplatform plans because the data shows that they're making more money from it and unlike the extremists online say, Xbox consoles aren't suffering. Microsoft reports higher player engagement and user spending on Xbox consoles consistently. And they aren't the Twitter users getting high over comparing sales; over 30 mil is a solid number for the console market. Xbox isn't failing or dying, it's very stable. But they want Xbox to be growing, and consoles have slowed in growth a lot. So instead they've taken a different strategy and they keep doing it because it works. I expect Sony is looking to build up this data: what is worth porting to what platform and how can maximum profit be earned on that platform.

@Fiendish-Beaver @TrollOfWar
Oh, this is getting fun. The job listing keeps coming up, so I decided to go to the actual source... which I did after several redirects and links. I don't think one can quantify percentage levels of importance for each platform, because there's nothing to suggest that at all on the actual job positing. For one the job positing is for the senior director of a team that said senior director would need to direct and develop. What's interesting is that is talks about each and every major platform equally UNTIL it comes to the team leadership section in which the role calls for the senior director to specifically find a Senior Manager for Platform Sales on Xbox & PC (no mention of nintendo) and a Manager for platform planning and performance on Xbox & PC (no mention of Nintendo). In addition to not mentioning Nintendo here they don't differentiate between the different storefronts as platforms like the job positing had before. Previous language referred to each storefront as a platform without referring to PC at all or said "PC and Console platforms" with everything in parenthesis. But all of a sudden Nintendo disappears for only "Xbox & PC" /"PC & Xbox" and I'm not saying this to get into the straws over the issue. But as we're speculating about the role not covering platforms equally, the job description mentions them all equally except Nintendo. Xbox and PC are stated an equal number of times. Considering the lack of actual information we have to go off of, I'd say the thing that sparked this all is worth keeping track of.

@cragis0001 Anyone remember that really old news circulation of Xbox and PlayStation teaming up to take on Amazon and Google in streaming? That was like at the start of the generation... maybe we're just in the delayed time line.

In an ideal world I'd like to see an Xbox console design lab, but I'm not sure how big of a market there is for limited edition or designed consoles. I'm willing to dip for an extra controller I personally designed or that got a cool limited edition, but far less so for a console. Especially if it's JUST a design and they aren't doing mid gen upgrades. Like last gen I bought the God of War edition PS5 Pro and Proejct Scorpio Xbox One X because I was upgrading anyway.

Though for Microsoft's business maybe limited consoles would be more beneficial than I think? At a time when they're raising costs due to "market conditions", limited editions would let them do so shamelessly while also keeping overall production controlled. It might cost them less during the current economy.

@Jenkinss I guess the real answer is, "it's up to the publisher." It's not really a question of Xbox supporting all games because they legally can't, and regardless they need permission first.

@Fiendish-Beaver I mean, if I were Sony following that logic then I'd 100% AVOID porting the licensed games. Those give a lot more life and longevity. People are still turning on their Xbox One consoles and giving more money to Fortnite, which Xbox gets 30% of. People are still buying GTA V to play online with friends. I mean if the logic is to kill Xbox faster, why port anything?

Interesting to say the least. I'd be most curious not in what Sony chooses to port, but the reasoning they give to shareholders after (and I'd be even more interested in the reasoning shared behind closed doors). What I'm seeing online just sounds... umm, yeah I don't get it. The predominant comment I see is that because the next Xbox will have steam, PS games will be there anyway... so Sony is choosing to port now so that they can give Xbox money and not just waiting for steam so that they can contribute to reasons for gamers to not use the Microsoft Store (which would be a really fast way to kill the console). That doesn't make much logical sense to me. I'll also be honest and say that Sony wanting Xbox dead and porting at all (especially live service and NEW games) doesn't either.

Like I said a few back, I think we all know that Sony is adopting a more multiplatform strategy and that will include Xbox to some capacity. The question is to what capacity & for what reason. The former time will answer and the latter will just infinitely get speculations.

@cragis0001 I can believe Microsoft negotiating for GT or hoping for it. What I find more tin foil hatty is the self sabatoging the studio specifically for that. Especially as at the time Microsoft was just doing cuts overall. The two just seem like separate events to me. I can believe that Microsoft doesn't care as much for Motorsport and chose to downsize turn 10 because they weren't making that much money. I can also believe that Xbox would welcome GT7 or any of the franchise. I'm not sure Xbox specifically targeted Turn 10 hoping that Sony would hear that on the grapevine and then choose to port GT because of that. If GT does come over, I don't think it'd be because Microsoft downzised turn 10. I also don't think Microsoft would downsize turn 10 thinking that GT might come over. I think Microsoft just downzised turn 10 for their own reasons and if GT comes over that will also happen for it's own reasons. Those reasons might be adjacently related (less competition from Motorsport), but I don't think they'd be directly made because of each other.

@Master_Cthulhu70 They "can" purchase the streaming rights from Ubisoft and I think as part of the deal they negotiated a pipeline to do that. It's just also an additional cost they'd have to take on. We've seen some games adding to streaming, but I don't think they want to do the whole slate for that reason. It could also be something else logistically. I just find the concession hilarious though. It just felt like Microsoft and the CMA were tired and just wanted an excuse to get this over with after the FTC failed.

@Jenkinss No service currently does. Probably the best comparison is Nvidia GFN and they're at around 2,000 and they've been doing this since 2017 (2020 post beta). Today they do monthly drops in the tens; in July there were 20 new games available to stream if you owned them on a connected service. It takes a lot of doing with licensing and talking to all the publishers. The technical aspect is probably the least difficult once the infrastructure is there.

@RadioHedgeFund For the next console they've already confirmed native backwards compatibility. Next, next maybe or probably more likely the planned OEMs. They clearly want gaming on a windows PC to feel like a more connected Xbox ecosystem experience. Like with the ROG Xbox Ally coming. There's been a lot of recent Xbox App updates to bring more of the Xbox experience to that one Xbox App on PC (streaming your own games through the app and the play history in your library that captures console play history as well as pc and cloud)

I wonder if the goal is to build up the library ahead of a "full" XCloud release this winter? I mean it feels like that. The beta tag has to come off soon and all that's left are those technical upgrades really. It'll almost definitely be a standalone service in 2026. And I'm here for that. I recently bought FF16 during the sale and the fact that the game is Xbox Play Anywhere & on XCloud is dope. I'd be a very happy customer if every game (or even just 25% of all new releases) on Xbox had this capability.

Pretty small list. I'll have to pick up Persona 3 on sale (so glad there was that GPU perk for the expansion pass). Anthem I already own (I proudly pre-ordered it way back when it released and had a lot of fun; I just wish EA liked it as much as I did). And farming sim is moot with the new one added.

@cragis0001 That's some major tin foiling hatting. If it were true would Microsoft then be liable to get sued? I mean probably not but I'd hate knowing my job was taken just so that the people on top could entice a port from a rival company. I think it's just how badly the latest Forza Motorsport underperformed and Microsoft seeing Forza Horizon has the bigger title. I mean it's a bit like Atlus and SMT vs Persona. The spin off got bigger than the main title and thus it got more support. Playground is also supposedly working on Forza Horizon 6 and Fable, so maybe Microsoft is just moving resources toward those projects. Thus they downsize Turn 10 and turn them into more of a support studio for Playground. The current Motorsport was always meant to be a long term live service anyway, so it could also be that there's not "that" much for Turn 10 to do. I don't Imagine Microsoft is in any rush to launch a new Motorsport.

@Fiendish-Beaver Speaking of long comments they do give way to misconceptions don't they? Okay, I understand what you think will come over now. Though, I'd still be surprised to see Sony do live service games day and date or even that close. I'd have assume they'd lose less exclusivity prestige and new console demand with old ports. Then again it's been a very surprising five years in gaming to say the least.

@DaveTheRave That wasn't really relevant to my comment is what I mean. I responded to the article with additional reasoning why I don't think any of this matters (Sony's ports) and then Sony's anime empire. The only think that remotely tied your reply to my comment is the idea of Xbox fans being worried... but that's literally just the title of this article. I'm just not sure why you responded to me. I'm even more surprised with you confirming that "it" doesn't respond to anything I said but just the topic of this article 😂. You're responding to the article itself and not me.

@Fiendish-Beaver So we do have same thoughts sometimes 😏.