VideoGame_Discussion

The Xbox name is unfortunately tied to the toxic club culture they built it on. They’re probably hoping Microsoft is a bit less polarizing- and they may be moving towards no box, so no Xbox.

Sounds silly but lots of gamers want nothing to do with Xbox.

Food for thought but MS just became the first company to hit 3 trillion market cap and passed long time rival Apple for the first time in over a decade. They got there largely thanks to their AI focus, plus shaving costs by reducing staff generally boosts the bottom line. Thus gaming likely isn't as important right now to the bean counters, especially when Sony still flatly outsells them and has better exclusives.

It's sort of funny to me that so many folks were all upset that MS was buying ABK because they feared that would mean CoD (and more) would go Xbox exclusive, only to now moan that MS could go basically non-exclusive for all games. It's like, wait didn't you just want them to do this? I do suspect that the groups that complained in these two cases don't have a lot of crossover, but it's still amusing to me.

Talk about pushing Gears, Halo and even Starfield and Hi-Fi Rush over to the PS5 doesn't bother me, since the first 2 are many years old now, and the latter 2 can only fetch so much revenue from GP. Going timed exclusive, especially with GP titles makes sense to me, but none of us know the financial details of any of these games, decisions, nor how GP funds factor in.

As someone who finally got an Xbox Series X in December... and have been catching up on many Xbox exclusives I missed since 2019 or so, I am concerned about all of the recent multiplatform rumors. I hope only Bethesda and Activation games are on other platforms and not exclusives such as Halo and Gears.

Question: I have Starfield downloaded but am hesitant to start due to the upcoming city maps patch. Is it worth waiting for? Also, does anyone think the XSX version will ever get 60FPS while the XSS stays at 30? Is that unlikely? I may wait if an FPS patch seems likely...

Side note: Redfall, which I am currently playing, is not a great game, but it is not a horrible one either. They patched it to decency and I have having fun with the fast gunplay.

I don't know if the people complaining about MS getting COD are the ones complaining about them going multi platform. I have not herd that. What I have herd is the legion of Xbox die hards lashing out and selling Xbox's. The Xbox influencers are all pretty damn pissed right now.

It would be cheaper for me to get a used box and the games I want than to consider long term subs. The digital push will end this idea going forward or at least force an MS account. Consumers tend to spend for convenience- not value.

I typically favored my 360 over PS3 back in the day but now I think I would I like Xbox but more as a service like Game Pass. I would have 0 issues if Microsoft announced in the years to come they would be halting producing and new consoles and focused solely on software, similar to what Sega did back in the Dreamcast days of olde. And look how good they’re doing now. Imagine what MS could do without focusing on making hardware and hitting hardware sales numbers and focused only on making good quality games now that they have bought a good chunk of the industry?

TalonJedi87 wrote:

How good are they doing now? They never separate out their gaming division from other divisions in their annual reports, so only Microsoft knows whether the gaming division is really turning much (if any) profit.

MS faces so many hurdles. Sega at least was able to make a clean break. MS can't do this. It's to bad they did not exit before people were super invested in there ecosystem and built up large digital libraries. It's going to be interesting to see how MS handles this.

My plan going forward:
- Set a long term roadmap on how existing software will be supported.

- GP on other platforms. IF you want GP on other platforms look into ways you can deliver the service without harming the platform your putting it on. 1st party games , fine but if you make 3rd party deals maybe add games that have already been available for 12 months so your not stealing sales.

- look into ways maybe in incorporating Xbox user accounts into PSN so users achievements can be taken with them. Let's face it some people have never owned a PS and only ever played an Xbox, it be worth looking the possibility of being able to transfer most if not all. It basically be with games that are available on both systems. Your not get all of it, but maybe it does not have to be such a gut punch.


- look into the possibility of scrapping the next console. What's the point in dragging out the transition? How many units could you possibly sell when many people feel like they are going to be abandoned... Why would they buy another console from you? Why would 3rd party support you?

Finn wrote:

Any gamepass on competing platforms is going to have to not just "not harm" Sony or Nintendo, but strongly benefit them.

Sony and Nintendo have 100% final say over anything that is licensed for their hardware, so if it is perceived as anything but a positive, they can simply choose not to allow it on the system.


If MS really pushes hard into the sub-only and eventually stream-only business they can still get a good number of console sales out of it. Or maybe they will lease those too like a modern cell phone plan.


The strategy seems to have been buy them all up and they aren't third parties anymore

MS faces so many hurdles. Sega at least was able to make a clean break. MS can't do this. It's to bad they did not exit before people were super invested in there ecosystem and built up large digital libraries. It's going to be interesting to see how MS handles this.

My plan going forward:
- Set a long term roadmap on how existing software will be supported.

- GP on other platforms. IF you want GP on other platforms look into ways you can deliver the service without harming the platform your putting it on. 1st party games , fine but if you make 3rd party deals maybe add games that have already been available for 12 months so your not stealing sales.

- look into ways maybe in incorporating Xbox user accounts into PSN so users achievements can be taken with them. Let's face it some people have never owned a PS and only ever played an Xbox, it be worth looking the possibility of being able to transfer most if not all. It basically be with games that are available on both systems. Your not get all of it, but maybe it does not have to be such a gut punch.


- look into the possibility of scrapping the next console. What's the point in dragging out the transition? How many units could you possibly sell when many people feel like they are going to be abandoned... Why would they buy another console from you? Why would 3rd party support you?


What happens next is going to be really interesting.

I've been an Xbox first gamer since the 360 and thanks to programs like GwG and MS rewards points I have a very large digital library on the ecosystem. But this still just rumored shift away from exclusives doesn't bother me like it's doing to some. Sure it may change my approach for the next gen but I'm not sure I'll even go into the next gen too hard anyhow.
Clearly others are in different positions on gaming overall, but this is why I don't get diehards or fanboys. The 360 was a leader of sorts and they got me into that ecosystem from there but I didn't shun Sony and have a PS3 and PS4 and want a 5 eventually, but with the Sony exclusives coming to PC I'm actually thinking of going for those versions instead.

I’m now wondering if they will create some type of game pass service, where it doesn’t include their first party libraries from like Xbox game studios like the Halos, Forzas and Gears of War games of the worlds and then launch that service on Nintendo and Sony platforms. This way it retains some exclusivity to their Xbox consoles and gets some more folks to buy Xboxes. Perhaps call it Game Pass Lite or something.

There is no way Nintendo or Sony allows that unless it's heavily subsidized. A service like that would only poach sales. I think a service that is the reverse of that would make sense. But again if all this goes through and there are alot of signs suggesting it is I ask what is the point of releasing next gen hardware? Why invest the money when your releasing your games on everything... You can make more money by simply not spending it.

I honestly love this, yes this all digital thing blows and I wish it would just disappear but MS going third party is music to my ears.

Same. I’d love a MS going third party only and I think after the next console generation maybe by 2030, it may just be an all digital future sadly. That I’m not really a fan of but it’s looking like the grim future becoming a reality.

Finn wrote:

Let your gamepass sub lapse and it does

When I had gamepass I’m pretty sure I paid 9.99 for the Witcher 2 and then let it lapse. The game that lured me -deaths door- wasn’t even on GP then.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding all of this but....

Layoffs aside, who cares? This was already heading to digital only regardless, it's just happening sooner than expected. I doubt the gaming division is going away entirely. I'm a GP subscriber and also have physical games. Everything continues to work as it should. They don't need to call it Xbox GamePass if it ends up working on any platform. It's literally just running as a resource in the cloud on any device with an internet connection. If you have an actual Xbox Series X, maybe it runs better. If you don't, it runs a little slower since there's no dedicated proprietary hardware powering it. Why wouldn't Sony do the same thing with their hardware?

This is essentially digital media being consumed on any platform. If you absolutely must stick to physical games due to principle or preference, you should probably stick to retro consoles or anything Nintendo.

I think the thing most people are shocked about is that it's happening this soon after the Activision deal.

They are thinking MS spent all this money to buy the company (plus millions more on litigation to get it approved) so they could finally have some compelling exclusives on their system, and now it seems like not only are they not going to be exclusives but they may not even be planning to continue on with the Xbox brand at all?

Then what was the point?

And apparently the point has been the push to the subscription model all along. The more studios they own, the better chance they have to be the dominant player in that market.

No one expected Netflix was going to one day to destroy the video rental industry (and severely cripple the home video physical industry) with streaming. Yet internet speeds and technology caught up.

Look at the music market: it went from all physical sales to mostly digital sales to no one is buying anything just subscribing to Spotify.

Now here we all are in the video game world seeing the push to digital more and more. MS is thinking beyond digital sales and trying to position itself appropriately for the next two phases after that: subscription and streaming.

You could say it's a bold move but it's the only move that makes sense for them. PS4 sold double the number of Xbox One systems. PS5's ratio over the Xbox Series console is even higher, with about a 2.5 to 1 lead overall since launch, with Sony growing that lead (2023 sales were 3 to 1 in favor of PS5).

If any of this is true, my guess is that Game Pass will drop all third-party and indie games... and stack it with all Activision, Bethesda, first-party studio games... and offer it on rival platforms... but that is the only way to play CoD and other formerly third party games on the rival platform. With better subscription pricing for those on Xbox Series X|S, as well as third-party and indie games on Xbox Series X|S.

SMY36738 wrote:

Not enough benefit there for Sony/Nintendo. If MS conditions availability of COD on allowing gamepass, Sony could revive Killzone or Socom or something. If there's no more Xbox to play it on, and it's not on Playstation, people in the Sony verse will move to other similar games. Heck maybe this is EA's chance to bring back Medal of Honor or make Battlefield relevant again. Or Ubi could create its 40th Tom Clancy spinoff series.

Nintendo has proven they can get along just fine without COD so they wouldn't take any subscription services that would eat into their own sales.

I kinda secretly wish MS would make COD a Game Pass exclusive, although unlikely since they did say several months ago that their goal was to have COD still on PlayStation, solely for that fact you just mentioned. Give us back the other war games of olde. Socom. Medal of Honor. Brothers in Arms. My body is ready. Enough with the obligatory COD nonsense. Variety is the spice of life!

Folks preach innovation and complain about remasters etc yet annually they buy more madden and CoD than anything.

Those “gamers” really grind my gears.

Feeb wrote:


They buy Pokemon too

And Assassin's Creed

Feeb wrote:

There's a large subsection of people that buy their annually COD and/or sports game, and that's it for the year. Those are not the same people that are looking for more/different.

DCGX wrote:

This is repeated pretty regularly, but is it true or is it just one of those things that people believe because it's been said for so long?

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/28/23777298/sony-f...

I guess it is true.

In 2021, over [14?] million users (by device) spent 30 percent or more of their time playing Call of Duty, over 6 million users spent more than 70% of their time on Call of Duty, and about 1 million users spent 100% of their gaming time on Call of Duty. In 2021, Call of Duty players spent an average of [116?] hours per year playing Call of Duty. Call of Duty players spending more than 70 percent of their time on Call of Duty spent an average of 296 hours on the franchise.

It's a small percentage of the overall userbase (less than 1%), but it's also not just a handful of people doing it for a youtube stunt or something.

FIFA is super popular now as well. Imagine what a truly capable (console) handheld- one that emulates an in front of the TV experience (better and faster load than switch) version of fifa, madden , CoD etc. maybe this is exactly why that market would fail- a 1 game attach rate would require selling it at a profit very quickly. They gotta buy more than 1-3 games.

benstylus wrote:

It's definitely a small percentage compared to all gamers, but a small percentage buying one or two games adds up quick versus the rest of gamers buying everything else that's out there.

If I only bought one or two games a year, and had a franchise I only played, I'd buy it every year too, no question regardless of quality.

https://www.ign.com/articles/xbox-game-pass-now-ha...

Apparently MS now has 34 million gamepass subscribers, up from 25 million when they last disclosed numbers in early 2022.

Seems like a nice boost, but they also converted Xbox Live Gold subscriptions to Game Pass Core late last year, and those ARE included in the total according to that ign article.

The problem I see is that according to this article from Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/07/17/...

Xbox Live Gold had 46 million subs back in May 2020. I'm sure many of them had already converted to Gamepass before the official rebrand of Xbox Live last year, but 46 million in 2020 to 34 million in 2023 is still a net loss of 12 million users, unless I'm missing something?

Read that article last night too. That’s still like a half a billion dollars a year they’re taking in even with losses. And this is why they’re a 3 trillion dollar company. The Xbox division is like a hobby for them and they keep buying up companies collecting them like Pokemon cards. Even if they’re losing they’re still making some kind of money.

TalonJedi87 wrote:

Assuming every one of those 34 million is on the "cheap" $60/yr plan, that's still $2 billion a year, or 5 Bobby Kotick severance packages.

But how much are they paying in dev costs for first party titles and licensing costs for third parties?

Now they are claiming the biggest hardware leap of any generation for the next console. Which is like 4 years away. Between the quote posted from Spencer in the PS5 topic last night, and now this. I'm starting to buy into them having lost their minds over there. How can they claim something about the hardware that doesn't exist yet. There is no way they have a dev model this early. Like they may have mock ups. But there is no way they have a working dev unit of a the next hardware that is 4x times as powerful as the existing hardware. Unless it is a $2K PC I can't see how that is even possible right now.

EDIT: the thing I read miss quoted, because of course it did. They didn't say 4x as powerful. They said "largest technical leap". Which could mean a lot of different things.

benstylus wrote:

Licensing is a big Expenditure I’m seeing now. I found an article online saying they spend like hundreds of millions of dollars per month to keep some games on their service.

MS doesn’t do themselves any favors by continuing to be obscurantist regarding the numbers. There’s often a spin in play. Often words or phrases that play on semantics etc. It feels patronizing at times.

I mean yeah...here's an article I found with some absurd gauging licensing fees for GP games (present or future). Some are monthly fees, others are 1 time fees. And for the record I wouldn't pay 50 cents to have Gotham Knights on my anything... that game was just a barrel of disappointment.

"Here’s the full breakdown of estimated costs for including games on Xbox Game Pass (whether at launch, or years after launch in the case of GTA V and Red Dead Redemption 2):

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor – US $300 million
Mortal Kombat 1 – US $250 million
Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League – US $250 million
Assassin’s Creed Mirage – US $100 million
Gotham Knights – US $50 million
Dying Light 2 – US $50 million
Lego Star Wars – US $35 million
Grand Theft Auto V – US $12-15 million per month
Red Dead Redemption 2 – US $5 million per month
Dragon Ball: The Breakers – US $20 million
Wreckfest 2 – US $10-14 million
Return to Monkey Island – US $5 million
Just Dance – US $5 million
Net Crisis Glitch Busters – US $5 million
Blood Runner – US $5 million
Baldur’s Gate 3 – US $5 million"

https://www.gameshub.com/news/news/xbox-game-pass-...

Off topic, but I wish Xbox customer support was the same support that handled the Microsoft365 business division. Support is complete ass over there. At least the gaming division is only half assed.

TalonJedi87 wrote:

Yeah, more amazing journalism at work I see. Those numbers are not what they paid, or were willing to pay. Those numbers are what they thought the partner, a.k.a. the developer/publisher, would ask for their game to be on the service. That is all that is. And it has notes about the game and their thoughts on it being on the service. None of it is concrete or shows any of the actual money involved in any deals. They've never actually said themselves how it works or what they pay. We have just gotten little bits and pieces from smaller devs, and mostly all they have to say is it really helped them out due to the deal they made for it.

Here is link to images of the actual emails with the info: https://imgur.com/a/pHi74Dq

Its getting pretty bad with all these lame ass gaming new sites. None of them have legit info anymore. Just like all media these days really. They all just change the info to fit their own narrative with little regard for the actual truth.

ryanflucas wrote:

The office 365/outlook.com/hotmail support is the worst I have ever seen. Its a complete joke. I deal with that stuff regularly, consult and do support for hosting companies and business. And when people use their service ask for my help it really annoys me. Because getting anything resolved from their end takes weeks. Its pretty bad when you can make yahoo look responsive.

I think it’s just a reflection of the current state of American society- overblown sensationalism and fake news. It’s all over MS a bit more so than the Japanese companies. They do a better job of not participating in the rigmarole of journalism.

All publicity is definitely not good publicity.