I know most people only ever read headlines and not full articles, but if you read the full Digital Foundry piece it actually cites a variety of reasons - e.g. the 'ballooning' costs of PC ports - not just the 'threat' of Project Helix to explain Sony's move. Personally, I don't think the latter factors all that much in Sony's calculations, though it may be one.
The simple truth is that Sony has made very little money from its PC ports, as they themselves recently admitted, so it simply isn't worth the cost or sacrificing exclusivity for. Even if Project Helix didn't exist, they probably would have done the same. At the end of the day, Sony has already won the console war, I just don't think that they care all that much what Xbox does next.
The whole point of this device is to segue Xbox gamers away from conventional consoles - now that Microsoft has definitively lost the console wars - and into the PC-centred future where Microsoft is going to reside. As such, it would be completely against the machine's raison d'etre to include a disc drive, when they want their audience to become essentially PC gamers, so I would almost certainly say no.
Three main reasons why Xbox can't afford to keep games exclusive:
1. It has a much smaller player base than Playstation - Sony can make enough money from selling games only on Playstation and still make decent profits in a way that Microsoft can't.
2. Even more important, Playstation gamers buy Sony's games at full price at launch - whereas (many) Xbox gamers get their first-party games 'free' on gamepass. Thus, even if Xbox had the same number of users as Playstation, there's a question mark over whether it still wouldn't make economic sense to keep selling games on rival consoles.
3. Post-Activision acquisition, Xbox is in a very different place than it was in the days when it could afford to keep games exclusive. Month in month out, it has to spend billions keeping all of its studios going, which is only really viable by selling its games multi-platform.
Conclusion: the only way Xbox could go back to keeping its games exclusive would be to follow Sony (and Nintendo) - stop giving away first-party titles day one on a subscription service, and get Xbox players to go back to paying full price for them. However, now that Xbox gamers are so used to the game pass model, this probably isn't a credible option, either.
Comments 3
Re: Digital Foundry Labels Sony's PS5 Exclusivity Pivot As A 'Defensive Move Against Project Helix'
I know most people only ever read headlines and not full articles, but if you read the full Digital Foundry piece it actually cites a variety of reasons - e.g. the 'ballooning' costs of PC ports - not just the 'threat' of Project Helix to explain Sony's move. Personally, I don't think the latter factors all that much in Sony's calculations, though it may be one.
The simple truth is that Sony has made very little money from its PC ports, as they themselves recently admitted, so it simply isn't worth the cost or sacrificing exclusivity for. Even if Project Helix didn't exist, they probably would have done the same. At the end of the day, Sony has already won the console war, I just don't think that they care all that much what Xbox does next.
Re: Talking Point: Do You Think Project Helix Will Support Physical Xbox Games?
The whole point of this device is to segue Xbox gamers away from conventional consoles - now that Microsoft has definitively lost the console wars - and into the PC-centred future where Microsoft is going to reside. As such, it would be completely against the machine's raison d'etre to include a disc drive, when they want their audience to become essentially PC gamers, so I would almost certainly say no.
Re: Opinion: Xbox Should Consider Cancelling Halo: Campaign Evolved For PS5
Three main reasons why Xbox can't afford to keep games exclusive:
1. It has a much smaller player base than Playstation - Sony can make enough money from selling games only on Playstation and still make decent profits in a way that Microsoft can't.
2. Even more important, Playstation gamers buy Sony's games at full price at launch - whereas (many) Xbox gamers get their first-party games 'free' on gamepass. Thus, even if Xbox had the same number of users as Playstation, there's a question mark over whether it still wouldn't make economic sense to keep selling games on rival consoles.
3. Post-Activision acquisition, Xbox is in a very different place than it was in the days when it could afford to keep games exclusive. Month in month out, it has to spend billions keeping all of its studios going, which is only really viable by selling its games multi-platform.
Conclusion: the only way Xbox could go back to keeping its games exclusive would be to follow Sony (and Nintendo) - stop giving away first-party titles day one on a subscription service, and get Xbox players to go back to paying full price for them. However, now that Xbox gamers are so used to the game pass model, this probably isn't a credible option, either.