510°

Xbox Live: No Longer the Gold Standard

Xbox Live Gold is an antiquated dinosaur that no longer fits within this industry. It's an exploitive service that takes advantage of people's innate desire to connect with others, charging significant money ($59.99/year, or $9.99/month) for features given away for free on competing platforms. As the next generation approaches, it's time for Microsoft to shelve this nickel-and-diming venture once and for all.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
NYC_Gamer4122d ago

I agree,that's way my Xbl account is on free status.I refuse to pay for online features that Steam and PSN offer for free of charge.

Welshy4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

All fanboyism etc aside.

When you look at the facts between XBL, PSN and Steam, it seems more than a little ridiculous that XBL still gets away with charging for online features.

The simplest way to break it down in the XBL vs PSN debate in my book is: If everything on XBL was made free excluding cross game chat which was still $60/£40, would you still pay for it knowing that you were only paying for features literally EVERY other platform does for free?

Apart from the obvious (not being able to play online at all) without paying, i think it's got to such a stage where long term XBL users have just been so accustomed to paying that they feel that:

A) If they are paying, then by default it MUST be better or worth it somehow.

or B) Admitting it's a rip-off now and saying it's not worth it after shelling out hundreds, if not 1000's, of £/$ over the years would be like admitting defeat and confessing to being fooled all those years and not wanting to look silly.

Regardless of platform, title or company, online features should ALWAYS be free, especially if they want to go down the Online Pass route we have been travelling. Can anyone honestly say it's fair to have to buy a £400 console, buy a £40 game, pay up to £10 per month for your internet, pay £40 MS to allow you access to your own internet and if the game is preowned or rented, having to shell out £8 AGAIN just to play the full product on the disc?

It's all getting a bit out of hand and, especially MS, if they just swallowed their pride and admitted noone has the money to go through that process for 5 more years next gen, and ditched the XBL fee, they'd be on to an absolute winner not just in the eyes of Xbox gamers, but the industry in general.

SolidSystem4122d ago

For me, its something that when I first got into the platform and grew accustom to it. Its the same way with something like WOW. I go into it knowing I'll be paying yearly for MP.

I dislike it, but at the same time its where the games I like are. So I have to.

It will be interesting to see what MS does.

Akuma-4122d ago

paying for xbl is silly but i guess we all are individuals and free to do whatever as long as its not hurting anyone.

ive got an xbox or several but i realise that i shouldn't be paying extra to play online because i can play most of its games on ps3 and way more. also the few extra xbox exclusives i dont need to experience online for xbox because i dont need to experience every game online or play. i love gears of war but ill just have to go without playing them all because i refuse to pay for xbl.

ill get the next xbox but dont plan on ever getting xbl for it.

Eazy-Eman4122d ago

Yo, faceless...that was a really good comment. I bubbled you up. Couldn't have said it better myself. I have had both a ps3 and an xbox and I can tell you that aside from playing halo and gears online it's really not worth it playing 60 dollars a year just to play those few games online. I also felt like when I had a gold membership I would feel like I was wasting it by just playing single player games.

Diver4122d ago

the ps3 was attacked relentlessly for its launch price. for those that bought a launch 360 an live 7 years later the get it cheap now didn't pay off.. ps3 cost more at launch but was the better investment

omi25p4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

im happy paying for Xbox live because i think the service is better but also the main reason is party chat.

If ps3 had party chat for free i may reconsider.

Also microsoft is the only Publisher/Developer not doing Online Passes.

DigitalRaptor4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

The truth is strong in this one. Well said!

Being forced to pay for P2P online gameplay is outrageous. By all means, charge for the advanced features like party chat but I can guarantee that there are millions upon millions of willing Xbox customers in waiting (like myself) who would snap up a next generation Xbox, minus the ransom to play half of its games online that you paid full dollar for.

Microsoft have been investing in first party studios and this is an absolutely positive move for next gen, but I just wish they would go a step further, swallow their pride and stop charging for basic connectivity where it's neither necessary nor pro-consumer.

@ omi25p

PS3 hasn't and won't ever get party functionality. PS Vita has it for free, as should PS4.

thebudgetgamer4122d ago

@omi: Xbox live is an online pass.

riverstars864122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

I don't think that Xbox Live Gold is worth the money that I spend for it, however, I pay for it because I value the social features such as cross game chat and party chat. These features are great and I wish the PS3 had them, but because they aren't on the PS3, it is hard for me to have the same experience when I play PS3 online.

I know there are a lot of people on this site who will argue that it isn't a big deal, but I got so accustomed to using cross game and party chat on Xbox 360 that I find myself hard pressed to play PS3 online because of the lack of these features.

Honestly, that is all it comes down to for me sadly. I don't care much about the apps of either service, but PS+ is a great service for that easily puts Xbox Live Gold to shame. I'm not a fan boy of either.

However, I'm so excited about next generation because I know that the PS4 will implement these features and if I find myself not having to pay a yearly fee to use them on PSN, then Microsoft has lost me as a customer, because I know Microsoft will still charge for Xbox Live. Now will Microsoft and Sony please quit stalling and bring on the next generation!!

MasterCornholio4122d ago

Well said faceless well said.

And i completely agree with you that it doesn´t make any sense to pay for multiplayer on XBOXlive if every one else is offering for free. Its free for the PS3, Vita, Wii U, Wii, 3DS, PC and many other platforms so what reason does Microsoft have for charging for it? None at all in my opinion and the only reason why they can get away with this is because XBOX gamers (since the first XBOX) are used to paying for multiplayer which is why they continue to pay for it.

I used to own a 360 and i used to have a subscription to gold so i know what it was like to pay for online multiplayer. But the problem that i had with the service is that it didn't provide me with anything that i couldn't get on the PC. So i made a decision to sell my 360 and buy a PS3. I had a regular PSN account for a short while but then i saw Plus offered for 40€ and in September i joined PlayStation plus. Ever since i joined plus i manage to download a ton of games that i haven't played before. Which got me thinking why gold subscribers are not demanding a similar service with XBOXlive gold? I seriously cant believe that XBOX owners don't want something like plus because it provides a lot more content than XBOXive and in my opinion its a service worth paying for.

Thanks for your comment as it was a very thoughtful, logical and very pleasurable one to read. However you might receive some degree of backlash from the fans who refuse to accept the truth about XboxLive.

cannon88004122d ago

The only reason I personally didn't buy the xbox 360 was because I would have to pay just to play my own games online etc. I swear I would have bought it if xbox live was just free.

mewhy324121d ago Show
carlocgc4121d ago (Edited 4121d ago )

@ TheFaceless

excellent comment very well put and my sentiment exactly however MS will charge while people will pay for it and i cannot see them turning away easy money.

I would rather that all the people willing to pay for Xbox live ON Xbox live and away from me as i no longer use Xbox for gaming though i do still use LIVE on windows for FREE from time to time but only if i have to.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 4121d ago
aquamala4122d ago

cloud saves are not free on PSN. yesterday Best Buy had a sale of 3-month XBL cards plus 800 ms points for $12.99 , so really 2.99 for 3 months, I bought 2 years worth of cards.

Welshy4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

So paying slightly less for something that should be free, and IS free everywhere else makes it OK?

Bottom line: you are still needlessly forced into paying for something you already pay your ISP for.

Edit: @SolidSystem PSN, Steam, Wii U, 3DS, Vita etc all let you use your ISP without a 3rd party surcharge for basic online play.

My point being that what MS provide is no different from the other platforms, so all they are essentially doing is standing in your way demanding more $ for the privelage of using their service which offers nothing different.

Refer to my comment #1.1 for a full explanation of what i'm trying to say so i don't have to retype my whole point here.

SolidSystem4122d ago

Faceless, you have that wrong. I pay my ISP for a connection. Not the other services available on the internet.

I agree gaming online should be free, with maybe some promotions (like PSN+ does.... which I am a member of) to bring in additional money.

Though the argument about ISP is silly.

StoneyYoshi4122d ago

Still paying to play the games you purchased to their full usefulness. discounted or not.

aquamala4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

@TheFaceless

like I said, cloud saves are not free on PS, to get it on PS you need to pay $50 a year for PS+. so no the "free" PSN does not have the same features as XBL gold.

DigitalRaptor4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

@ TheFaceless

It's frustrating when people completely miss the point you're trying to make, isn't it? Happens all time in specific regard to this topic.

People think you're hating on a service. No!!! Xbox Live is excellent service. What is under scrutiny (and rightly so) is Microsoft's decision to charge their customers for something that is free in ecosystems outside Xbox. Basic online play or P2P. Look it up people. That shouldn't be a ransom/selling point for Xbox Live. That should be a guarantee for the $60 you pay for each of your games. Have MS charge $60 a year for advanced features only - I have absolutely no issues with that.

And discount arguments shouldn't even apply here since it's about the principle, not about how much you can save on things you shouldn't have to consider paying for to begin with.

Hozi4122d ago

you bought two years? did you check the expiration date(not sure if there is one) I just don't want that to happen to you before you finish your first 3 months.

grifter0244121d ago (Edited 4121d ago )

It's funny that people that don't know where to look cry about paying for XBL.

If you actually were a person that played on the 360 and paid for XBL you would already find deals everywhere.

The dashboard when you become a silver member has $1 for 1 month deals...and guess what you can cancel the auto renewal so when the month ends you just do it over again. Not to mention everyone that was gold last week got 1 whole free month for free because cloud was down.

I've paid 12$ for 1 whole year doing that...oh but wait I'm still paying boohoo.

If you don't want to pay and don't have a 360 I don't know why you are in here crying about it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4121d ago
4122d ago
mochachino4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

My Gold account expired December 2012, haven't renewed it and don't plan too. Not having a gold account makes my 360 seem worthless now though, like a car missing an integral part that isn't worth fixing.

I may even sell my 360 as I'm starting to really appreciate my PS3 lately. Looks like all my future multiplats will be on PS3 for the foreseeable future, which is OK cause all my friends switched over to PS3-only a while ago for the free online anyways.

$60 per year to play online is about $30 too much for me. The apps and other stuff certainly isn't worth the high surcharge.

It seems the US is the only place where 360 does well now, PS3 dominates every other market. I live in Canada and don't know anyone that has a 360 anymore. They all switched to PS3 after their consoles broke or just sold it for PS3s free online.

Rivitur4122d ago

Cheap ass gamer had a post a while back that I used to get 2$ for two months

http://www.cheapassgamer.co...

MasterCratosKong664121d ago

not disagreeing w your main point, but ps3 does not dominate every other market

Zephyrus344122d ago ShowReplies(1)
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

If ps4 and 720 release at the same price 720 will be $60 more.. $120 for multi-player and a game on 720 or a $60 for a ps4 launch game + gaikai features? hmmm

Buy a MS car(xbox) and they will charge you extra for the steering wheel(multiplayer).

delboy4122d ago

And when did you realize that?! Lol
Why did you buy a xbox in the first place?
Lol for everyone that bought a xbox in the first place,knowing about gold subscription and no online without payment.

Mr_Writer854122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

@ omi25p

im happy paying for Xbox live because i think the service is better but also the main reason is party chat.

If ps3 had party chat for free i may reconsider.

Also microsoft is the only Publisher/Developer not doing Online Passes.

Sooooooo..... You pay £40 a year for party chat? Hahahahahahahahahahah mug.

And MS wont do online passes because they charge you for online already :/

Kran4122d ago

I don't disagree with you. I do agree.

But the problem is so many people pay for XBL, which means Microsoft will think: "Wow. We're actually making money from this. Stuff those people who disagree with us. XBL WILL ALWAYS BE A PAID SERVICE!!!"

Stupid I know.

Nes_Daze4121d ago (Edited 4121d ago )

Another thing people bring up is lag on PSN, which is ridiculous. There's lag on both sides, when I was on Live I got kicked about every 15 minutes from a party chat, or randomly disconnected. And now with PSN Plus, I just can't justify paying $50 for cross game chat and a prettier display.

otherZinc4121d ago

No, its ridiculously naive for a so-called super site like Gamespot doesnt realise the importance & fluidity of XBOX Live. PSN is a POS & all of you know this.

PSN doesnt work until a few patches have been released. It isn't integrated.

Most of All:
If you guys think SONY is going to do this for free next gen...You're Stupid!

M$ worked on LIVE for 3 years before it released: Oh, and you nuts think people work for free? Do you work for free? Yet, a service like Live that isn't duplicated, you want for free? You're Stupid!

Its funny, these articles release every month. I know its for traction, but, it just tells me how Stupid a Site can actually be.

Keep up with the day 1 patches & complaining about SONY online games that dont work day 1, also, the massive load times.

Keep up the Stupid, People.
You get what you pay for.
If LIVE were overrated it wouldnt be killing PSN right now!

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 4121d ago
NeverEnding19894122d ago

I just renewed my annual gold subscription for $30. I wasn't too happy about it, but it's the best way to play multiplayer. Forget about most PS3 owners not having a mic, PSN is a gimped service compared to Xbox Live. Chat, Invites, UI, etc.

PS+ will force M$ to do better next gen. But until that time multiplayer gamers don't have a choice.

DA_SHREDDER4122d ago

Gimped? I can play free games online for free like DCU, PShome, MAG, and Dust 514. Where's this gimp you speak of?

SolidSystem4122d ago

DA_Shredder, he outlined the features he considered gimped. if you agree or not... thats a different matter.

I agree with him though. The invites, and missing chat support (cross game specifically) are a big deal to me.

StoneyYoshi4122d ago

Since when do invites not exist on PSN? LOL

ThanatosDMC4122d ago

That just means he's criticizing a console he's never touched.

ipe4122d ago

yes they do.

bunch of garbage right there. Huge amount of people on live dont use mic at all, most of them use it in halo or cod, but it not some "standard".

bunch of people on psn and steam use mics.
I wont speak for everyone, but when i use mics i get distracted from game, i use it for casual games with friends, thats it.

It doesnt matter anymore is it 60 or 40 bux, i refuse to pay for p2p and things i dont use.

At this point psn, steam>>>> live, i received about 500 + euros worth of content with ps+ which was 45 euros. Many games i wouldnt have tried.
And steam is also different world dor live. PERIOD

tee_bag2424122d ago

@ NeverEnding - "Multiplayer gamers dont have a choice" Heard of Steam or PS3?

If your happy paying for online play...thats fine, maybe I should make some extra money off you too and buy some MS shares.
Try and respect and educate yourself to the fact people have been gaming online for free, years before the xbox existed.

Riderz13374122d ago

Lol the reason why I don't even bother with Multiplayer games is because of the mic. Just a bunch of pre puberty kids screaming every time they die or yelling "I'm the best" when they get a kill. I just use Skype if I wanna communicate with friends online. It's free too.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4122d ago
Alderney4122d ago

I'm assuming he's referring to cross game invites and the amount of time it takes to bring up the XMB while in game.

I agree tho. PSN+ is awesome, but my primary method of online gaming is going to continue to be Xbox live because of the features you listed.

Max-Zorin4122d ago

This gen isn't the gold standard.
1. Gamers showing nothing but hatred toward each other. No unity whatsoever.
2. Companies purposely locking away game content and calling it DLC claiming technical difficulties.
3. Flame bait articles left and right.
Etc.

BanBrother4122d ago

The funny thing about your comment is that, I bet half of the people who 'agreed' with you fit right into your first point, but are in denial.

I also agree with you, but this will never change. This gen we saw a massive influx of this generations teens (the bratty, over-spoiled douche-bags) and so it is more apparent.

mochachino4122d ago

You realize that you just demonstrated that you too are in denial by showing your hatred making your comment not only hypocritical but an indictment of yourself as well.

AD7054122d ago

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true sir

high five!

wumster4122d ago

I stopped paying this past November. It was hard to give up 7 years, but I have to agree that I don't think it is worth the price anymore. In the beginning, I was amazed that the online experience was so cohesive with the OS. Now, we have Steam, SEN and even Miiverse and they are free.

I know people are going to say it is not 60 dollars and you are right, you can find it for cheaper. However, when there are free services that offer the same thing and in some cases more, I had to eliminate my LiVE account.

Godmars2904122d ago

Have to say as someone with a PS3 who never used XBL, the only people who seemed to think it was only had a 360. Worked for pro-360 sites.

taylork374122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

I have both and can tell you that PSN is where it is today because of XBL. I actually prefer my PS3 over my 360 for multiplats, but besides the fee (which is still not a big deal), XBL was the model that Sony followed to better PSN. Its really as simple as that.

PSN would look very different if XBL did not come first and I really don't think anyone can argue.

With that said, XBL never stopped being the "gold standard." XBL doesn't stop being the gold standard because a bunch of people who don't like anything about the 360 or MS don't like the fact that it isn't free and other people don't mind paying the insignificant fee.

You can pretend to downplay the popularity and success of XBL but that doesn't make it disappear.
Nest gen, when PSN is still free and has some of the obvious features that it lacked this gen then XBL will no longer be the gold standard. It will happen, it just hasn't happened yet.

AD7054122d ago

I'm not a fan of xbl but I agree with your comment. PSN did pretty much follow XBL when it came to online. I remember when I first got my ps3 and how I refused to play on PSN in it's current state due to how terrible it was. But as it start to take after XBL it got better.

P_Bomb4122d ago (Edited 4122d ago )

Absolute credit to XBL for forcing Sony to improve their service to the point that MS now has reason to do the same.

The 10 million hardware lead is gone, so it's time for the pay model to reflect that and evolve. Apps like Youtube, IE, Netflix, Twitter and even the discontinued Facebook shoulda been open to Silver users. Period. Competition is great though cuz it forces these guys to look at what they offer, bang for buck. Remember no in-game messaging on PSN, no in-game XMB, the awful Konami log-ins for MGO, no scrolling game tickers on friend profiles, no premium avatars, no trophies, no blocking, no custom soundtracks period, no Plus, no Home? I do.

We've come a long way. From the "haz no gaemz" memes to this. Both systems became better because they had to and subsequently leapfrogged eachother at different points, while the Wii just kinda went on in its own lil' SD bubble.

Show all comments (184)
280°

Xbox's Preservation Step Sets A Much-Needed Example, Especially For Nintendo

Hanzla from eXputer inquires: "If Xbox can care about preserving its games and legacy, what exactly is wrong with Nintendo, trying to kill game preservation single-handedly?"

purple1014d ago

Ahh yes the good old game preservation of saving all your games to a removable hhd on the Xbox 360, taking it round your mates house, setting up multiple tvs to
Be met with “save data corrupted, please re download”

Or how about removing 360 games
From the store
, download them now or else, and, better hope to god that save data doesn’t corrupt, or it’s lost for ever

Nice one ☝️

Zeref3d ago

It's better than what Nintendo and Playstation is doing. It might not be perfect but at least they are TRYING. Unlike the others.

DarXyde3d ago

Trying? Take off the blinders for a moment, mate.

1. A failure to preserve games is just that: a failure to preserve games. Don't try to sugarcoat it: NO ONE is doing it properly. Better than awful is nothing to write home about.

2. At the time of this comment, isn't it the case that you need an internet connection to play Xbox games even if you buy physical discs that are hardly in circulation anymore? I don't have a Series X and I can't verify, but I think that is correct. I'm fairly certain you can at least play PS5 games at version 1.0 (not much of a win really when many games require day one patches). I think Microsoft's all digital, licensing approach is by far more aggressive than anyone else's. They really try to push you to game pass where you lose your entire library by umm.... Skipping a month of payments.

I don't think anyone is doing it right whatsoever. Don't get me started on Nintendo, who goes after anyone looking to preserve their games better than they ever would with extreme litigation.

Don't be a simp for any of these companies. Get it together.

PhillyDonJawn3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@DarX never speak on Xbox again. You lost all credibility with your internet connection comment. Smh you have 0 clue and misinformed yet speaking on something you don't no squat about.

Einhander19723d ago

What has Sony done exactly? You guys keep deflecting to Sony but I am not actually seeing any results, and ai am certain nothing that you can come up with even comes close to what Microsoft has done and what they have tried and failed to do, like tie all your disks to your account on xbone.

Microsoft removed their whole indie section when they moved to the xbone because they were going to only allow games on the service that came from a publisher, id@xbox started after xbone launched and it only exists because Sony embraced indie and Microsoft was forced to cancel their plans and reverse course.

And every single game that was part of games for windows live including disk games (I have gta 4 on disk that won't work) so hundreds of games that use that DRM no longer work unless the company themselves patched it out which of course very few did.

MrBaskerville3d ago

Not trying. Tried. they killed of the backcomp program years ago. They set something up again, but sounds like it's more of an attempt to save the current library on whatever they are planning next. With luck they save everything and more, but let's see. I could see them killing off parts of the OG xbox and 360 libraries. Can't imagine that they would allow us to play Forza 5-7 in the future.

With that said, I do like what they've done and really wish they could have done more.

shinoff21833d ago

Zeref

So killing off physical media is trying what exactly. Ms don't really give a fk if you think they do your kidding yourself.

Profchaos3d ago

They are not trying this team is established for forward compatability the team is. It interested in preserving Xbox or 360 games.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3d ago
isarai4d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref3d ago

Just because it's digital only doesn't mean you can't preserve it. Just put it on an external and you have the exact same functionality of what a disc does.

MrNinosan3d ago

Guess you're trolling, but if you actually think that's how it works, I'd recommend buying some braincells.

mkis0072d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Volitile vs nonvolitile data. A disc will not corrupt either. A drive can be corrupted.

Einhander19724d ago

This is just a scammy PR move to distract from the fact they are going digital only and trying to push streaming and subscriptions only.

No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft.

Without discs there is no preservation, preservation can't be done by the rights holders it can only be done by the consumers, anything else is a lie.

4d ago Replies(3)
Einhander19724d ago

Anyone remember xblig which Microsoft removed their whole 360 indie section removing hundreds of games from people?

4d ago
4d ago
Zeref3d ago

Do you know you can put your games on an external and preserve them that way? There are no benefits to discs. ZERO. Idk why some of you are still obsessed with them.

DarXyde3d ago

Because games like Persona 5 exist. It's STILL V1.00. On Playstation, that's a win because 1.00 is installed on the disc—no need to download anything.

If a game does not require any updates, it's all on the disc.

Extremely low bar in the modern era, of course. It's not much of a win by any stretch.

But for now, physical media does have a purpose, at least on Playstation.

Einhander19723d ago

That is factually not how game licensing works, try plugging your hard drive into someone else xbox, It's not going to work, and it won't work if the licensing servers ever go down.

Einhander19723d ago

Anyone remember games for windows live.

I have around a dozen games, some on Steam itself that will not work because Microsoft shut off the licensing servers.

BehindTheRows3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I do. I STILL have games (Gears of War being the big one) I cannot access because Games for Windows LIVE is total garbage and no one has held Microsoft accountable.

Zeref3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership.

Chevalier3d ago

"You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership."

Damn how many times do people got to explain your idiocy to you? You can take a copy of Persona 5 like someone used as an example and play that game on ANY console WITHOUT logging in which means I can lend the game to a friend without internet and they can play my game. Can you lend your hard drive to anyone without logging in for them to play? NOPE. That is a huge difference and if you think otherwise then sorry you're an idiot.

Tacoboto3d ago

"No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft."

Ubisoft is literally erasing games people bought from their libraries... My PS1-3 discs are useless on modern hardware. Nintendo's re-published and resold almost their entire Wii U library, and the eShop is completely dead with no BC mechanism in the Switch software. Microsoft publishes everything they make today day one on Steam and Xbox/Windows. Sony only brings to PC the titles they think you might want some years later and Nintendo won't even design a functional long-lasting joystick.

You're absolutely trolling and not serious if you think Microsoft today is the worst offender.

shinoff21833d ago

Yay steam

Not everyone fks with computers though. The disc is still the best way as a console player. Period.

Tacoboto3d ago

How do Sony and Nintendo feel about these discs from 2001-2013?

Don't be stupid, you know Xbox is the best at this today.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3d ago
Hofstaderman3d ago

Nobody wants this. Sales or the lack of it in the case of XBOX is very telling. I wonder how the adorably all digital series X will fare. Adorably dismal perhaps?

crazyCoconuts3d ago

Only time will tell, but for from someone like me suspecting that Xbox is trying to gracefully exit the console market, that "forward compatibility" team is trying to get Xbox games playing on Windows PCs. I mean, it's nice that they're not planning on exiting with a "enjoy your games while the hardware still works" message, so that's nice. They still have a brand to protect via Microsoft so probably feel obligated to have a better exit strategy.

Xeofate3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

That is not their plan, their plan is to transfer users accounts to the cloud.

Phil Spencer himself said as much a few months back, plans could have changed but I think people are reading way too much into one statement where Phil said he would allow Epic on xbox because he wants to be able to sell xbox games directly on other platforms. Aka, instead of selling Sea of Thives through PSN he wants to have an xbox store to sell his games on PlayStation without giving PlayStation any money.

Again, it's extremely unlikely that Phil plans to put PC on xbox and licensing would prevent them from just giving out other publishers games purchased on xbox copies of thier games on PC, Microsoft does not own their games.

crazyCoconuts2d ago

The thing that doesn't align with the cloud strategy is the giving up on exclusives. You'd still need strong exclusives for cloud streaming - it's still a "platform" , just with a lower upfront hardware investment. I feel like they've learned what PS learned with PSNow long ago. We're not ready to stream games and it's only gonna lose them money to try at this point

FinalFantasyFanatic3d ago

I would love that, I'd buy up some of the Xbox games if they could run on PC, like the Rare Replay, Lost Odyssey and Dead or Alive Ultimate, probably a pipe dream though.

Show all comments (43)
370°

Could Xbox Soon Become The Next Dreamcast?

Microsoft's future in the video game space is murky right now, so let's break it all down.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
ApocalypseShadow16d ago (Edited 16d ago )

Not anytime soon. But they're on that path.

One thing not mentioned in the article is Microsoft's money bags. If Sega had Microsoft's money, they would have still been around as a hardware manufacturer. Xbox as a platform only survives because of the money bags. They can continue making consoles for the core and port to PC.

The multiplatform strategy is only the result of arrogance and misguided leadership that blew up in their face. They thought gamers would jump on Xbox in droves if they knew that many of their favorite games would be only on Xbox. But that's not happening at all. Sales didn't increase. They decreased. Why? Because the dumb asses thought giving away these expensively made games in a cheap service would also turn the tide.

Gamers on other platforms are willing to buy quality. They don't need to be handed nearly free games in a service that aren't even finished and sometimes average in their development. Gamers buy Nintendo games. They buy Sony games. Microsoft groomed their base to not buy games. Even the quality ones. It has always been their plan to go digital. But most gamers still like single player gaming. Still like physical releases.

Microsoft's problem has always been that they don't produce high quality games at the same output as Nintendo and Sony. Actually, they should be producing quite a lot more because they're worth over 2 TRILLION. How they don't have more is ridiculous and no excuse. Buying publishers to take away from competition only backfired. Because it still takes millions of dollars to continue to make those games from the publishers they snatched. Their only choice was to crawl back to their competitors to help sustain those developers because Nintendo and Sony platforms were the ones buying games.

Am I sorry for Microsoft? Hell no! They deserved last place for putting in the least effort. They deserved the fallout for buying up the industry and didn't make a single blip on the radar against their competitors where they now need those same gamers they took away games from to support them. Part of it may have been to cash in on their competition. But the result is the slow death of their platform. They may go 3rd party. They may keep making hardware. I don't give a shit about them to worry about it. I only give a shit about the destructive nature of their industry moves that only negatively affect gamers. They could sell and drop out of the industry and I wouldn't blink. Probably laugh. But not blink. They deserve whatever comes to them. At least Sega put in the effort when it came to games. They just had poor leadership. Microsoft has poor leadership and barely makes memorable games. That's a killer combination. And not in a good way.

Cacabunga16d ago

That would be an insult to Dreamcast.. it had a crazy line up of legendary critically acclaimed games.

Crows9016d ago

I was thinking the same. Dreamcast had incredible games in such a short amount of time. It was truly exceptional.

darthv7215d ago

...and yet all those great games were not enough to sway people from the looming release of the PS2 at the time. Sony just has that kind of brand loyalty.

Cacabunga15d ago

Darth

I do not agree.. Sony had even better games thanks to an unprecedented 3rd party support..
DC had amazing lineup but 90% were arcade games..

88315d ago

@darth:
And Sony showed off "The Emotion Engine" and their real time demos that made everyone think they would miss out on REAL next gen 128bit magic if they jumped in before PS2s polygon pushing monster (and early lack of anti-aliasing with a healthy heap of shimmer + DVD playback) stepped up. PS2 was a fantastic system though with amazing games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 15d ago
blacktiger16d ago

That's not true. Just because Microsoft has the money doesn't mean Microsoft can allow xbox to bleed entire Microsoft money. It doesn't work like they. Also SEC will be watching and investor won't allow it. Lot of reasons why Microsoft can not continue even if they wanted to. SEC regulations is expensive.

fr0sty16d ago (Edited 16d ago )

Exactly this... Microsoft is a publicly traded company, mostly owned by their shareholders (Approximately 59.24% of the company's stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 7.73% is owned by Insiders and 33.03% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.). Their shareholders call the shots on the business decisions, and their shareholders want one thing and one thing only, for their stock price to go up. Losses do not make stock prices go up... so if the division continually posts losses on hardware, but shows profits on software and services (which has been the case with Xbox its entire lifespan, for over 20 years now), the shareholders are going to grow impatient and demand they stop making hardware and focus on the only thing that has ever made them money, software and services.

When Microsoft bought Blizzard and Activision for almost 100 billion, I knew that was the nail in the coffin for Xbox as a console... as the shareholders were going to expect a quick return on that investment, and when it didn't materialize, they were going to be out for blood... out to force Xbox to sell those games on as many consoles as possible, "and while you're at it, sell those first party exclusives that aren't selling well on other consoles as well... hell, just stop making consoles and sell games."

If there is another Xbox console generation, it will definitely be the last, but I doubt there even will be one at this point. I think the Xbox division planning on it just in case, but I don't think the project has been greenlit from Microsoft itself. The rumors that they have not yet even secured the chips needed from the chip fabrication facilities ties into this.

shinoff218316d ago

While I usually agree with you . Alot of what was said can just also be asked before any of that.

How long will the shareholders wait? It doesn't appear long at all

Babadook715d ago

I think I get your point. Like just because MS has money does not mean they are content to throw it away on a dying ecosystem. Xbox has to be profitable or “what’s the point?”

ifinitygamer15d ago

Money bags, yes, but are we ignoring that Xbox actually makes a profit on games and GamePass? Hardware is often a loss leader, and they're probably making profit 4 years into the life cycle, but games and services revenue have been very profitable while other parts of Microsoft's business is struggling. Say what you will about the quality of those games, of course, but this is kind of a reverse Dreamcast situation, where the console was dragging down the company and put it at risk of shuttering entirely. Killing that console saved the business and allowed it to continue to make games on multiple platforms. In this case, the service is very profitable, as are the games, and they're also double-dipping into Multiplatform to extend this further, while their hardware is just sort of what they believe to be the best for gamers and their own titles (whether that is the case or not...)

fr0sty15d ago (Edited 15d ago )

The issue is, they aren't selling enough hardware to make their exclusives profitable, and now that they've bought half the gaming publisher/dev industry, they have no choice but to go third party to make a profit... and that is making their shareholders take a real close look at their hardware division under the microscope... why keep making the hardware if the software is all that is making them money, and they continually, generation after generation come in dead last with hardware sales?

Look at a game like Spiderman 2... if it had been an Xbox exclusive, with the amount it cost to develop, it would have been a huge failure... simply not enough consoles out there to sell it on. They would have been lucky to break even.

ifinitygamer15d ago

@fr0sty agreed completely, which is why they're hedging by releasing other games to multiplatform, plus they have PC to make up for the difference in a lot of ways, which is why their games are not complete money pits. It brings up the question of whether or not those exclusives would drive sales of consoles, though. Let's say Spiderman 2 was an Xbox exclusive, it would certainly have pushed console sales, though who's to say how much is anyone's guess.

fr0sty15d ago

That's why you can't rely on just one exclusive, Sony has always delivered on a wide range of solid exclusives, even this generation (even if they haven't been strong on the first party exclusives, they've made up for it with third party). They don't rely on just one "system seller", they have a portfolio of them.

15d ago
JBlaze22615d ago

ApocalypseShadow To be honest Sony has more of a chance to go 3rd party because like you said Microsoft has money, Sony does not. Sony does not have games, Only games they have come from 3rd party. Sony has been losing money for years and you. Saying Microsoft has been putting the least effort just proves you have no idea what's been going on. All Sony has done is repeat and recycle, never innovating or doing something new. All Sony has is brand loyalty nothing else and it shows.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 15d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil16d ago

Not sure about that. It's been two decades and I still think about Power Stone, Shenmue, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Seaman and others, but I'm not sure I'll remember Xbox Series X/S games in a few years from now... Maybe I'll remember about the franchises that the Xbox brand spawned, but I don't believe that the Xbox Series lives up to the late Dreamcast or even to the Xbox name itself. I do have great memories about the 360 with Blue Dragon, Gears 2 and Lost Odyssey though

isarai16d ago

Nah, sega actually makes good games

Becuzisaid16d ago

No, Dreamcast was ahead of it's time and most still have very fond memories of it that had one. It also had some good games on it even in it's short lifespan. Xbox has none of these qualities.

Profchaos16d ago

I remember it coming out at the time in a really bad place they hit the market before the PS2 but it was during this transitional time when Sony was promoting the power of the PS2 and so many of the Dreamcast games were awesome but often third parties simply ported the PS1 version increased resolution and performance but rarely fully utilise the capabilities of the console.

I think in the end bad marketing done it in and like the GameCube so many people are fond of it now but at the time it was looked at in the lense of the day and it didn't stack up.

Personally I miss Sega in hardware they took risks that many companies won't

Becuzisaid16d ago

I never owned it, and got the PS2 right when it launched. But there were certain games it had that I was always jealous of that I didn't have access to - Sonic adventure, crazy taxi, power Stone, code Veronica, shenmue, skies of Arcadia. I always thought it was a really cool machine though. I've never heard a bad thing about it though from those that had it.

FinalFantasyFanatic15d ago

I only ever saw one Dreamcast, and that was one my friend owned, pity I never got to play it, I wonder what games he had for it?

It would be nice if some of those games got ported to modern systems.

Profchaos16d ago

Oh man sonic adventure on the Dreamcast made me so jealous as a huge sonic fan on the mega drive who also moved to PlayStation 2 I never got the chance to play it back in the day either. The Dreamcast in Australia where I am was always relegated to the smallest corner of EB Games it was kind of a strong first indicator that things were not going well at the time.

Show all comments (72)
80°

Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox and weekly streaks to be killed off soon

Microsoft has announced the Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox will be discontinued in April and has confirmed that weekly streaks will also be coming to an end.

Read Full Story >>
trueachievements.com