80°

10 Years of Xbox Live: How Microsoft Created The Ultimate Console Gaming Network

OXM Staff:

A lot of fingers were crossed when Xbox Live took its tenuous first steps. Back in late 2002, the gaming landscape was very different: digital distribution was in its infancy and console multiplayer came in two flavours - split-screen or system link. It was a far cry from today's always connected, always plugged-in world. Microsoft took a serious gamble - one that paid off by ushering in a whole new era for online gaming and multimedia on consoles. Ten years on, it's remarkable how far we've come.

Belking4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

I haven't been there since day 1 on Live but the time that i have has been awesome. It's a good service that keeps getting better. Very smart of MS to make this move by creating this service. My opinion of course. I'm sure some will disagree like usual.

MikeMyers4127d ago

Of course some will disagree but what is it they are disagreeing with?

It seems like the biggest issue is price. Some may have a problem with it out of value, out of principal or out of not offering any free alternative that allows online play. What they fail to mention is just how easy the service is to use and how seamless and unified it is. Everything runs within. So if you get an invite, want to chat, send messages, go from game to game, it's all done while being connected. It's also the only service that has Achievements for all games and allows voice chat for all games and that has the ability to listen to your own music for any game.

My issue with it are a few things.

1. Support of dedicated servers
2. No free way of playing online
3. Friends list is still capped at 100
4. The different classes simply don't work. Most people jump lump themselves in recreation.
5. A paid service should excel in weeding out the idiots online and make them more accountable.
6. No mod support
7. Cross play was a failure (Microsoft tried to expand the service to PC but failed)
8. Party chat has its downfall since some prefer to always talk privately which takes away team based games and communicating with one another.
9. No MMO games. We heard about some but they never came (Huxley for example)
10. The patch process is expensive, games like Fez need a fix but the price to devs are too high.

Belking4127d ago

1. Support of dedicated servers (and for good reasons)
2. No free way of playing online (not true and if you can't afford to pay a few dollars amonth then you probably shouldn't be spending money on games anyway)
3. Friends list is still capped at 100 (and for good reasons...720 will take care of that and who the hell need more than 100 friends anyway?)
4. The different classes simply don't work. Most people jump lump themselves in recreation. (again not true)
5. A paid service should excel in weeding out the idiots online and make them more accountable. ( that's what the mute option is for)
6. No mod support( and for good reasons i'm sure...xbox720)
7. Cross play was a failure (Microsoft tried to expand the service to PC but failed) (Not true)
8. Party chat has its downfall since some prefer to always talk privately which takes away team based games and communicating with one another.(but you still have it...better than not)
9. No MMO games. We heard about some but they never came (Huxley for example)(xbox 720 will)
10. The patch process is expensive, games like Fez need a fix but the price to devs are too high.(that's bs...devs need to get their crap right the first time and their would be no need..not MS fault)

MikeMyers4127d ago

1. Because it's peer to peer we still have games like Halo 4 capped at 16 players.
2. It's not about being able to afford it. The fact is nobody else charges for basic service. Microsoft should offer a free alternative. Most games now have some form of online attached to it. So it's a shame they want consumers to pay for the hardware, then pay for the software, then pay for their internet access and then on top of that pay to unlock the online multiplayer they already purchased when they bought the game. It's like a car dealership wanting to charge to unlock the window key so that you can roll down the windows. Online has become a basic need now since most games include it.
3. Some do. In fact some people probably have over 1,000 Facebook friends.
4. No, they don't work. You cannot force Pro gamers to go into the Pro category. You also cannot force those who use a lot of foul language to go into Underground. Most go into Recreation because it makes it easier to join a game due to a larger number of people. This is where the limit of friends comes in. Why not be able to have 50 people in Recreation class, 50 in Pro, 50 in Underground and 50 in Family for example? It's poorly designed and it does a poor job at weeding out the morons who like to go online and ruin the fun for others.
5. The Mute button works to an extent. Muting doesn't prevent people from team killing. It doesn't prevent people hosting and not kicking players out for no reason or taking their sweet ass time in the lobby. Far too many people play loud music just to be an idiot. Maybe if there are enough complaints the system should notify that user to let them know. If they still persist then block their microphone so that everyone doesn't have to mute that person. Why should Live players who pay money have to do all the work for Microsoft? There simply needs to be more accountability, especially for a paid service.
6. The reasons are simply, Microsoft wants it to be a closed-off environment but they can still offer it to those who wish to play on different servers.
7. It is true. Why wasn't Portal 2 offered to play with Steam players but it was on the PS3? Where are all the cross-platforms games you speak of? Shadowrun and....
8. Yes, you still have it but there is a downside to it as well, that's all I'm saying.
9. You keep saying Xbox 720. The Xbox 360 is the second attempt and still Live hasn't evolved in many areas.
10. Poor excuse. Stop defending dumb practices that are mostly relevant to Live. Microsoft has far too many restrictions and limitations. They won't even allow developers to offer more than one free DLC for example. They also capped XBLA game sizes that they had to increase. The people who made Oddworld have also voiced their frustrations. This isn't something that is vaporware.

DigitalRaptor4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

@ MikeMyers

You're talking sense to someone who just can't see it. I've said all that's necessary in the past, but you've said it better.

XBL = amazing service

Problem = lack of choice to play every game you own for free, on what is basic peer to peer connectivity. It's something that works everywhere else outside the Xbox eco-system. When a choice like that is revoked everything else that is easily meritable such as the unified nature of XBL goes out the window, cause I'm not going to be subscribing to a service that holds half the games I own for ransom.

Solution = free online gaming for all users. Advanced features come with a paid subscription and Microsoft can easily afford for this to happen, keep the same standard of service, and you all know it. Whether or not it is feasible for MS and their shareholders to drop this easy money maker is not relevant. It's something they should have done a long time ago.

MikeMyers4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

DigitalRaptor, I'm not sure if Microsoft could offer a free alternative. The whole system is webbed together to work in unison. That means they need to just drop the fee all-together and do something like Sony has done with Playstation Plus. That is offering a secondary service that shows where the value is coming from, but keep the online multiplayer separated and not have a fee attached. Most people just expect to play online with their friends or make new friends and not be charged for it. EA is not a very liked company but even they don't charge to play online and their servers are actually run by EA on Live servers. EA refused to support Xbox Live unless they had control of their own games. That's why you see EA games taken down from time to time..

If they want to integrate the service with Kinect for example then showcase how it works and try and sell the idea to consumers and get them to buy Kinect. Don't hold all Xbox 360 gamers as hostage and say 'well we have motion controlled search and voice control search, so that's one selling feature.' Or ESPN and other things that are attached to Live. One thing I always hated was how cable companies bundle their packages when a lot of people just want certain channels. That's the great thing when buying music off of services like itunes and amazon, you can now just buy one song if you like. So in essence what Microsoft has done is the same thing, they have taken the online multiplayer and shrouded it with other things to make it appear like there is added value to it.

Back in 2002 that value was much higher than it is today and that is due to other companies evolving. Difference is they have done it all while still giving consumers the ability to play online for free.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4127d ago
4127d ago
IAMERROR4127d ago

Great service but Online gaming needs to be free for all members.

Janitor4127d ago

But, you pay for internet...shouldn't Netflix be free? You paid for your car....shouldn't gas be free?

Janitor4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

Yeah that's my point, people think they buy the game every thing else should be free, but most things in life aren't like that is all I'm saying.

IAMERROR- or you could, I don't know, just ignore the ads. But then what would you complain about?

IAMERROR4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

You're blowing my comment out of proportion with a ridiculous analogy, every other major gaming service is Free. Doesn't help that the dashboard is plastered with ads everywhere, just saying M$ is making enough money keep all the gold only features MS but make online gaming available for everyone.

@Janitor
The X-bot in you is strong, your xbox damage control is quite funny. I'm an Xbox guy which makes this all the more funny. My complaint wasn't about the ads it was about Online gaming not being free for silver members with only a side remark about the ADS on the dashhboard... even for paying customers! haha let me post some sticky notes on my TV over the ads. In all honestly they don't bother me just making a point that MS would still make revenue even if online gaming was free.

Diver4127d ago

bad analogy dude. no gas shouldn't be free just like electricity to power the Xbox isn't free. but I shouldn't have to pay the car manufacturer if I want my friends to drive their cars with me to a ball game.

Hicken4127d ago

That's a fail, Janitor.

MASSIVE fail.

Netflix provides you with content you can't get elsewhere(legally) without paying.

As for gas, there aren't cars out there that come with free gas for the life of the car. More to the point, that's not a standard practice throughout the industry.

Free online is a standard industry practice... except when it comes to Microsoft's console.

There's no spinning that in a good way.

NONE.

Stop trying.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4127d ago
caseh4127d ago

Have to say I agree about the gaming side of it. You pay for the game which includes the online aspect which is mainly p2p on consoles.

All PC and PS3 games have hosted servers or p2p, you only pay for subscription based games.

Its not like XBL does the gaming aspect any better to justify the fee.

IAMERROR4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

MS even knows this! Hence why they made games for Windows live free.

SnakeCQC4127d ago

next article should be how sony created the ultimate gaming network with zero cost to the user ohh yh the official xbox magazine would never do that

hazardman4127d ago

dude if it wasnt for xbl there would be no PSN and to truly take advantage of PSN you have to upgrade to plus..which means you have to pay. I pay for xbl and psn+ i have no problem my ps3 games collection has grown significantly since i started paying for plus...nowadays you have to pay for everything.

caseh4127d ago

'dude if it wasnt for xbl there would be no PSN'

That comment makes no sense, online gaming has been around for about 15 years. MS didn't invent online gaming with the introduction of the Xbox it was just a natural progression. Dreamcast and PS2 both had online capabilities but trying to push those at a time when 56k ruled the world was limiting.

The upgrade to PSN+ is a major boost over what XBL offers. I voluntarily pay £30 a year for a service which offers about £200 of free software, exclusive offers and discounts. You pay that with XBL without any of the advantages I mentioned unless something has changed since I moved on from the Xbox360.

hazardman4127d ago (Edited 4127d ago )

ok im talking this gen of online network. i know dreamcast/ps2/xbox1 had online i owned them all. even then xbox live was still the best service! halo 2/crimson skies/forza/pgr2...every online console game was better on xbl back in the days.... oh and ps2 wasnt online ready from the get go like dreamcast and xbox you had to get the online kit you hook up in back of ps2 fat, i remember it came with the final fantasy game bundle/ wasnt til slim that it came with built in ethernet if im not mistaken..im going off memory/not research so i could be wrong. 34yr old gamer and ive owned almost every console to date.

ALLWRONG4127d ago

^^^ see how Sony fanboys always bring up PSN first in Xbox news? Now go try a comment like that in a PSN article and see how fast it gets removed for trolling, followed by PM's from stalkers.

SnakeCQC4127d ago

im no fan boy i have an awesome pc a 360 and a ps3. Only on the 360 do i have to pay for online for pretty much a similar service

Lvl_up_gamer4127d ago

@ Erudito87

Similar...but not the same.

When PSN becomes less similar and more the same, then you have an argument why it's better to play on a free service. Until then, you are not playing or experiencing the best online service for multiplayer games on a console.

Show all comments (33)
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?"

purple1012d 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 ☝️

Zeref1d 18h 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.

DarXyde1d 16h 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.

PhillyDonJawn1d 16h ago (Edited 1d 16h 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.

Einhander19721d 15h 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.

MrBaskerville1d 14h 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.

shinoff21831d 7h 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.

Profchaos1d 6h 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 1d 6h ago
isarai2d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref1d 18h 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.

MrNinosan1d 17h ago

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

mkis00721h ago(Edited 21h ago)

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

Einhander19722d 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.

2d ago Replies(3)
Einhander19722d ago

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

2d ago
2d ago
Zeref1d 18h 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.

DarXyde1d 16h 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.

Einhander19721d 16h 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.

Einhander19721d 16h 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.

BehindTheRows1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h 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.

Zeref1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h 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.

Chevalier1d 13h 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.

Tacoboto1d 14h 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.

shinoff21831d 6h ago

Yay steam

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

Tacoboto1d 4h 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 1d 4h ago
Hofstaderman1d 19h 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?

crazyCoconuts1d 15h 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.

Xeofate1d 11h ago (Edited 1d 11h 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.

crazyCoconuts16h 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

FinalFantasyFanatic1d 1h 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
ApocalypseShadow14d ago (Edited 14d 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.

Cacabunga14d ago

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

Crows9014d ago

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

darthv7213d 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.

Cacabunga13d 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..

88313d 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 13d ago
blacktiger14d 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.

fr0sty14d ago (Edited 14d 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.

shinoff218314d 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

Babadook713d 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?”

ifinitygamer13d 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...)

fr0sty13d ago (Edited 13d 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.

ifinitygamer13d 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.

fr0sty13d 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.

13d ago
JBlaze22613d 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 13d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil14d 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

isarai14d ago

Nah, sega actually makes good games

Becuzisaid14d 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.

Profchaos14d 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

Becuzisaid14d 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.

FinalFantasyFanatic13d 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.

Profchaos14d 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