I feel like the only appeal to buying an Xbox these days is Xbox Game Pass, or if you really want one of the exclusive games and don't own/want a gaming PC.
I feel like the only appeal to buying an Xbox these days is Xbox Game Pass, or if you really want one of the exclusive games and don't own/want a gaming PC.
I think they had something good going on with the Series S, which was a less powerful console for a much cheaper price tag. Microsoft's problem is that they are doing jack shit with their IP's....
I think they had something good going on with the Series S, which was a less powerful console for a much cheaper price tag.
Microsoft's problem is that they are doing jack shit with their IP's. For all the studios and intellectual properties that Microsoft own, it's actually downright shocking how few exclusives there are to draw people towards Xbox.
Prior to their acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Microsoft owned: Pillars of Eternity, The Outer Wilds, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Deathloop, Brink, Starfield, Doom, Quake, Commander Keen, Rage, Wolfenstein, Halo, Gears, Forza Motorsport, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, Kameo, Conker, Banjo-Kazooie, Viva Pinata, Killer Instinct, Sabrewulf, Dishonored, Prey, BattleToads, Blinx The Time Sweeper, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Minecraft, Fable and a few lesser-known IP's that I cannot think of off the top of my head.
The list of IP's that Microsoft actually owns is absolutely fucking stacked. And now they own Spyro, Crash, Call of Duty, Hexen, Guitar Hero, True Crime, Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm and so many other Activision Blizzard properties.
Don't get me wrong. Game Pass is incredibly good value for what it is and I cannot fault Phil Spencer for going all-in on this business model. But that shit doesn't sell you consoles, and it's unlikely we'll see Game Pass supported on any hardware other than PC or Xbox.
Only problem there is, the Series S's reduced power makes designing games for the current swath of XBox consoles more challenging - because you're making your games for two disparate pieces of...
I think they had something good going on with the Series S, which was a less powerful console for a much cheaper price tag.
Only problem there is, the Series S's reduced power makes designing games for the current swath of XBox consoles more challenging - because you're making your games for two disparate pieces of hardware. At the very least, the Series X and PS5 are fairly similar in features; if you design a game to utilize the full oomph of the Series X, then the Series S may not be able to run it at all - or, if it can, it'll be severely hamstrung.
Opposite end, if you design a game to run flawlessly on the Series S, then it won't take advantage of the power that the Series X has.
True, Microsoft isn't doing much with their studios and that's a bigger issue on the whole. But I don't think splitting their hardware into two design paths did them any favors.
The Series S parity stipulation has already started causing major problems with key releases. Baldur's Gate 3 is still not out on the Xbox platform because of it. They had to negotiate a solution...
The Series S parity stipulation has already started causing major problems with key releases. Baldur's Gate 3 is still not out on the Xbox platform because of it.
They had to negotiate a solution with Microsoft after months upon months of struggling to get splitscreen on the Series S to work, and it seems Spencer himself had to finally capitulate and personally grant an exception: no split-screen on the Series S.
Yeah, I think as time goes on more developers are going to push on the "if you insist parity for the series S, then we just won't release on it", especially as Xbox's market share remains low....
Yeah, I think as time goes on more developers are going to push on the "if you insist parity for the series S, then we just won't release on it", especially as Xbox's market share remains low. Which means Microsoft will be pushed into relenting on it more, and eventually breaking the value prop of the series S.
I think a better (more accurate) take would be that Microsoft wants the Xbox brand to be synonymous with gaming. When you think of gaming, you think of Xbox. When he says “Xbox community”, what he...
I think a better (more accurate) take would be that Microsoft wants the Xbox brand to be synonymous with gaming. When you think of gaming, you think of Xbox.
When he says “Xbox community”, what he really means is the entire addressable gaming market. Since Microsoft now owns several major game publishers/studios, they can sell to PS5 and Switch users too. I realize they could have done that before but it didn’t make business sense. They were essentially forced into this to get the Activision deal approved in the EU.
Also a reply to @Bullmaestro, but I remember, back in the later years of PS1/early PS2 that Crash Bandicoot was considered PlayStation’s unofficial mascot. How ironic that it’s now just another...
Mascot talk
Also a reply to @Bullmaestro, but I remember, back in the later years of PS1/early PS2 that Crash Bandicoot was considered PlayStation’s unofficial mascot. How ironic that it’s now just another figure on the shelf that may or may not get pulled out for use again.
There are some rumors swirling around in RTS circles about MS having a lot of interest in the Starcraft IP but hinting that they won't be making another RTS (in part because all of Blizzard's RTS...
But ironically, I would argue that MSFT's purchase of various well-liked franchises that have since sat fallow is a great example how MSFT doesn't know how to manage IPs. Rare's IPs basically sit fallow. Crash is fallow. You could argue that MSFT doesn't know how to make them make sense on Xbox, but that to me just highlights that XB's brand is weird and hodgepodge.
There are some rumors swirling around in RTS circles about MS having a lot of interest in the Starcraft IP but hinting that they won't be making another RTS (in part because all of Blizzard's RTS developers left so they'd be starting from scratch if they tried). But the idea that they want to continue with Starcraft as an IP without it being an RTS makes me wonder if they understand what the Starcraft fanbase is actually in it for. It certainly isn't the quality of the writing or beloved characters, that's for sure.
There obviously are differences but just in the space orc genre they already have Halo and Gears of War. Do they need another open worldish FPS with RPG spice thrown in, in that genre?
There obviously are differences but just in the space orc genre they already have Halo and Gears of War. Do they need another open worldish FPS with RPG spice thrown in, in that genre?
I'd guess they would probably do something RTS adjacent like an ARPG, a MOBA, or a even a CCG or 4x game that might appeal to a similar "strategy" minded audience. RTS is a really hard genre to...
I'd guess they would probably do something RTS adjacent like an ARPG, a MOBA, or a even a CCG or 4x game that might appeal to a similar "strategy" minded audience.
RTS is a really hard genre to develop for. The big game engines aren't really designed for it so you have to build a lot of stuff yourself. Combined that with the fact that user expectations around things like responsiveness or pathfinding or AI are way way higher now and it's a really high risk proposition. You can't get away with being subpar on any of it because games like Starcraft 2 raised the bar so high. Even if you're exactly as good as a genre highlight like C&C Generals you'll get torn apart by reviewers.
The developers who got good at that sort of thing have all moved on now and there haven't been many new games being made that leverage or develop those skills.
I feel like the only appeal to buying an Xbox these days is Xbox Game Pass, or if you really want one of the exclusive games and don't own/want a gaming PC.
I think they had something good going on with the Series S, which was a less powerful console for a much cheaper price tag.
Microsoft's problem is that they are doing jack shit with their IP's. For all the studios and intellectual properties that Microsoft own, it's actually downright shocking how few exclusives there are to draw people towards Xbox.
Prior to their acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Microsoft owned: Pillars of Eternity, The Outer Wilds, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Deathloop, Brink, Starfield, Doom, Quake, Commander Keen, Rage, Wolfenstein, Halo, Gears, Forza Motorsport, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, Kameo, Conker, Banjo-Kazooie, Viva Pinata, Killer Instinct, Sabrewulf, Dishonored, Prey, BattleToads, Blinx The Time Sweeper, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Minecraft, Fable and a few lesser-known IP's that I cannot think of off the top of my head.
The list of IP's that Microsoft actually owns is absolutely fucking stacked. And now they own Spyro, Crash, Call of Duty, Hexen, Guitar Hero, True Crime, Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm and so many other Activision Blizzard properties.
Don't get me wrong. Game Pass is incredibly good value for what it is and I cannot fault Phil Spencer for going all-in on this business model. But that shit doesn't sell you consoles, and it's unlikely we'll see Game Pass supported on any hardware other than PC or Xbox.
Only problem there is, the Series S's reduced power makes designing games for the current swath of XBox consoles more challenging - because you're making your games for two disparate pieces of hardware. At the very least, the Series X and PS5 are fairly similar in features; if you design a game to utilize the full oomph of the Series X, then the Series S may not be able to run it at all - or, if it can, it'll be severely hamstrung.
Opposite end, if you design a game to run flawlessly on the Series S, then it won't take advantage of the power that the Series X has.
True, Microsoft isn't doing much with their studios and that's a bigger issue on the whole. But I don't think splitting their hardware into two design paths did them any favors.
The Series S parity stipulation has already started causing major problems with key releases. Baldur's Gate 3 is still not out on the Xbox platform because of it.
They had to negotiate a solution with Microsoft after months upon months of struggling to get splitscreen on the Series S to work, and it seems Spencer himself had to finally capitulate and personally grant an exception: no split-screen on the Series S.
Yeah, I think as time goes on more developers are going to push on the "if you insist parity for the series S, then we just won't release on it", especially as Xbox's market share remains low. Which means Microsoft will be pushed into relenting on it more, and eventually breaking the value prop of the series S.
Incredibly pedantic, but you're thinking of The Outer Worlds. Outer Wilds is a totally different game (but absolutely worth playing!).
I think a better (more accurate) take would be that Microsoft wants the Xbox brand to be synonymous with gaming. When you think of gaming, you think of Xbox.
When he says “Xbox community”, what he really means is the entire addressable gaming market. Since Microsoft now owns several major game publishers/studios, they can sell to PS5 and Switch users too. I realize they could have done that before but it didn’t make business sense. They were essentially forced into this to get the Activision deal approved in the EU.
Also a reply to @Bullmaestro, but I remember, back in the later years of PS1/early PS2 that Crash Bandicoot was considered PlayStation’s unofficial mascot. How ironic that it’s now just another figure on the shelf that may or may not get pulled out for use again.
There are some rumors swirling around in RTS circles about MS having a lot of interest in the Starcraft IP but hinting that they won't be making another RTS (in part because all of Blizzard's RTS developers left so they'd be starting from scratch if they tried). But the idea that they want to continue with Starcraft as an IP without it being an RTS makes me wonder if they understand what the Starcraft fanbase is actually in it for. It certainly isn't the quality of the writing or beloved characters, that's for sure.
There obviously are differences but just in the space orc genre they already have Halo and Gears of War. Do they need another open worldish FPS with RPG spice thrown in, in that genre?
I'd guess they would probably do something RTS adjacent like an ARPG, a MOBA, or a even a CCG or 4x game that might appeal to a similar "strategy" minded audience.
RTS is a really hard genre to develop for. The big game engines aren't really designed for it so you have to build a lot of stuff yourself. Combined that with the fact that user expectations around things like responsiveness or pathfinding or AI are way way higher now and it's a really high risk proposition. You can't get away with being subpar on any of it because games like Starcraft 2 raised the bar so high. Even if you're exactly as good as a genre highlight like C&C Generals you'll get torn apart by reviewers.
The developers who got good at that sort of thing have all moved on now and there haven't been many new games being made that leverage or develop those skills.
Why people call Microsoft MSFT?
Stock ticker symbol. And it’s more polite than the old Slashdot abbreviation of M$.
Phil Spencer must dream of a world where NO ONE can use an unlicensed Xbox controller, no matter which console you choose.