350°

The Xbox One will kill used games and control second-hand sales, and that’s great news (Really!)

Microsoft stepped in a load of dog shit when news of fees to play used games and account-based permissions began to hit the press, and the lack of a cohesive message in this area has hurt the public’s perception of the upcoming Xbox One. The idea of the used game, at least as Penny Arcade understand it, may be coming to a close.

The surprising thing? That could be great news.

Read Full Story >>
penny-arcade.com
jc485733981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

well, someone just came with an article and mentioned something about on the spot reauthentication at retail stores that sell used games. Man, I don't even know what's true anymore.

jujubee883981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

The new bureaucracy installed to rework how used games will "work", IS going to cost mind and man power.

Not sure how it will all work, but if the PS4 used game policy stays the same and MS tries something new: one will face an uphill battle laying down new pipelines, while the other has all the power already on and working.

Will the average college student working in local gamestops even bother listening to the MS rep coming in, telling him how this tech should be used? Or will that worker just concentrate on his already rough job, tell the kid trying to sell an Xbox One, "sorry, we don't accept those"? Or will brick and mortar stores (already under tight budgets) want to open up their pocket books, spend more money to have pros run that used game system? We'll see.

jc485733981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

I think it would be much wiser if Sony simply made transactions easier for retailers and consumers, so I hope it happens. Going through that extra wait just to get your game re-authenticated seems a bit weird to me. Not every consumer would like that, so these are the kind of "buyer's mentality" microsoft should've considered. Then again, there are a other issues with xboxone we need to worry about as well.

joab7773981d ago

Agree. Once the market is dead both sony and MS will be able to go the route of Steam. They can offer deals etc...and they will make more money. The ps3 once allowed 5 ppl to play one game. Maybe reinstating something like that will appease gamers because it could b even cheaper than buying used.

Blacktric3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

"This is good news for a few reasons. The first is that piracy will likely be reduced."

Jesus christ this logic... Quality gaming journalism at its best.

"The next thing is that the used-game market all but disappears. "

This is just goddamn embarrasing. But considering the same guy who said "if you can't afford to get internet, you shouldn't buy a console" on Twitter wrote this, it's just understandable.

adorie3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

This terrible opinion piece was already mangled by NeoGAF. Someone should have struck this down before it got approved.

The author of said article is an extremely asinine corporate bottom shoe licking toolshed.

"Based on this information, it sounds like you’ll be able to “sell” your used games, but no one will buy able to buy them. Microsoft becomes the entity that controls the entirety of the transaction, and no lower-priced tier of 'used games' is ever created in this scenario."

This is only good for suits. Devs get their share, Pubs take the rest. Suits = Pubs.

DragonKnight3981d ago

"The author of said article is an extremely asinine corporate bottom shoe licking toolshed."

Agreed. This "article" is just terrible.

"This is good news for a few reasons."

No it's not. At all. For anyone but Microsoft and greedy publishers, this is bad news.

"The first is that piracy will likely be reduced."

The token argument for all anti-consumer practices involving software. It was never a valid reason, and it never will be.

"The next thing is that the used-game market all but disappears. GameStop may not be able to aggressively hawk used games for $5 less than the new price to customers under these new controls, which is great if you're a developer or publisher. Once that secondary market is removed you can suddenly profit from every copy of your game sold, and as profit margins rise it's possible we'll see prices drop. Some stodgy publishers will likely stay with the $60 model, but they're dead companies walking already. The smart companies will see this opportunity to play with pricing and see what works and what doesn't."

This whole thing is B.S. I'm still looking for someone to answer the question "Why should developers/publishers get extra profit off of one copy for NOT doing ANYTHING extra to deserve it?" And don't get it twisted, "you can suddenly profit from every copy of your game sold" <- This already happens. Unless sold online, developers don't sell their games directly to consumers and instead sell to stores like Gamestop, who are the ones that pay for the copies in full.

"Without the used market sucking up all those sales and all that consumer money, it's very possible we'll see Steam-style sales on older or bundled games on the Xbox One."

That's a false connection. The DD games on Live and PS3 already prove that publishers aren't interested too much in ever lowering the prices of their games, even if they are years old. What's more likely to happen is that publishers will see that there is not other option for consumers to get the game cheaper, so they'll have said consumers "by the balls" so to speak.

"It's not a sure thing, but killing used games is going to free up a ton of money for companies to try new ideas in terms of sales and pricing."

*facepalm* more failed logic that doesn't take into consideration the possibility of people just not buying the games at all.

"The current economics of game development and sales are unsustainable."

Wrong, the current business models are unsustainable.

And finally, stop using Steam as an example. Steam itself is a huge form of DRM and is anti-consumer in its own ways. It's only prevalent because it suckered PC gamers for too long to the point where it's too late to do anything about it.

Everything Microsoft has planned is bad for the consumer.

MikeMyers3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

Funny how people don't care about the viability of the industry to make money. We've seen many game developers go under and we've also heard many comments from game developers who would like to abolish used games in its current form.

We have to think differently now. It is not like before. Everything is connected now and those servers cost money. I also don't want people stuck in the past limiting what's possible for the future. I want games to be quick to get started and play. I want games ready to go and not have to wait for it to load, wait for it to patch. I want to be able to have access to all of my games from anywhere without the need for the hardware to be carried around. I can go to my buddies house and sign-in and play my games.

Games like Watchdogs and Destiny will show what's possible in games going forward and why being connected has its benefits. If you don't want to be part of the new generation then go pull your SNES out of the attic.

PC gaming has evolved, it's time for game consoles to.

Kyosuke_Sanada3981d ago

@ Mike Myers

The reason why most of these game companies are going under is because of poor money management.

How many companies tried to make a mansion out of toothpicks by making unnecessary triple AAA games (Tomb Raider) or tried to do unnecessary reboots (Zipper Interactive), paid way too much for licensing (THQ) or had an advertisement budgets which are almost triple the game's production cost (EA).......

It's hard to tell if serious or stealth trolling....

DragonKnight3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

Ladies and Gentlemen, behold MikeMyers. Corporate apologist and defender of anti-consumerism.

"PC gaming has evolved, it's time for game consoles to."

You call the destruction of the used game market an evolution? Wow. Microsoft saw you coming.

onanie3981d ago

@DragonKnight

LOL. I'm sure Microsoft enjoyed the sight.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3981d ago
MariaHelFutura3981d ago

No, not being able to share your property is not a great thing. Stop drinkin' the Kool Aid.

Irishguy953981d ago

Been that way on PC for years...hasn't really bothered me.

MariaHelFutura3981d ago

PC gamers don't share, they pirate. Not all, but most/some.

Ducky3981d ago

^ ... but piracy is sharing.

003981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

the xbone id basically a shitty PC without any of the benefits.

MariaHelFutura3981d ago

Piracy is not sharing, it's theft. The only people who would consider piracy sharing, is loney ass PC gamers who have no real friends to share with.

Ducky3981d ago

Maria really dislikes PC gamers for some reason.
Piracy isn't restricted to gaming.

I guess it might be worth pointing out that you've arbitrarily defined 'theft' as a 'lost potential sale', which is exactly how publishers view the 2nd hand game market.

kneon3981d ago

@Ducky

Piracy is theft, you have obtained something to which you are not entitled.

Double_O_Revan3981d ago

Then you guys are suckers that didn't put up a fight. And you gave in so easily because of all rhe attractive Steam sales.

The big difference is, PC gamers buy nontransferable games for $5-10. The Xbox Ones nontransferable games will be between $40-$55.

If that's all Microsoft charged, then I might be OK with that.

Dark_Overlord3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

FFS when will people understand that piracy IS NOT THEFT, it is copyright infringement.

Theft is defined as taking something so that the original person does not have said item anymore, copyright infringement is making a copy of said product without the original owners permission.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for theft when it comes to piracy, they've been prosecuted for copyright infringement.

Here's something for you to read

http://torrentfreak.com/pir...

rainslacker3980d ago

And yet...the UK last year had to rule on ownership rights of games brought on Steam. Isn't it possible that a lot of people are starting to see the downsides of DD?

It may not bother you, but it does bother others. Just because you feel nothing for it, doesn't mean it doesn't effect you. One day you may find that all this indifference comes back to bite you in the ass...kinda like it is doing for many right now since we have to deal with it in this manner.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3980d ago
shadowraiden3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

its not your property and hasnt been since the start of gaming.
buying the game doesnt mean you own it anyway it just means you have brought the right to play it and thats it if you read the terms and agreements you accepted when you put the disc on your console you are breaking them by then selling it.

love the disagrees when all i was doing was pointing out a fact. end of day this has been in gaming for a long time in which you was breaking the T&A's by selling your copy its just there wasn't a way to enforce it untill recent years.

MariaHelFutura3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

Are you insane? That's one of the most crazy/sad thing I've ever heard on this site (that says alot).

Anyway, hypothetically if someone comes and steals your game collection, you have the option of calling the police to attempt to recover your property and if they succeed in recovering your property the person who took them will be charged w/ theft. If you want you even not press charges personally and give them your game collection if you choose to.

BECAUSE IT'S YOUR PROPERTY!!!!

SexyGamerDude3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

I just read the book to my copy of Final Fantasy 13-2 and the only selling that it seems to mention that is wrong is the selling of unauthorized reproductions (Illegal copies). It says nothing about selling the original copy.

003981d ago

I'm guessing you send out checks to the manufactures every time you sell your old stuff.

Software_Lover3981d ago

No, purchasing a game has always meant you owned it, until Apple and f'n itunes changed everything. Now we have agreements everywhere we go. We have to accept before we do anything.

sway_z3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

Re; shadowraidens comment....

He's right, this copyright law exists with Literature, Music, Movies and Video Games.

...but nobody pays attention to copyright law, and it is rarely enforced by cops.

Don't be so dismissive..if you don't know, ask and be informed people :)

*for the record, I disagree with said laws...if you buy it, you should own it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3981d ago
Majin-vegeta3981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

*These aren't crazy ideas. You can't sell your games on Steam,*

Umm did OP not get the message yet??You can sell your digital games in Europe anyways.
http://www.gameinformer.com...

Edit:Like Maria said not being able to share our games without paying extra is bs. Anyone who says they are ok with this are basically telling M$.*They like to be taken advantage of.*

SexyGamerDude3981d ago

I don't even know why people keep comparing this to steam. Steam gives you deals and sells you games for low prices, sometimes you can even get certain things for free. I doubt you will see the low prices you see on steam on the One. Microsoft wants to get more money out of you, digital copies on Live almost always cost more than physical ones.

shadowraiden3981d ago

yet there isnt a sell option on steam for EU and most likely never will be.

tbh its not so much the consumer they're trying to take advantage off its the companies who have made millions by leeching off the used game market.

wishingW3L3981d ago

gamers are so easy on giving up on their rights... If people are like this when it comes to video games no wonder why politics are so bad.

shadowraiden3981d ago

and those rights were given up as soon as you put the disc in.

unlike other media you dont own the game when you buy it you essentially rent the right to play it yourself for a indefinite amount of time.

SexyGamerDude3981d ago

You don't rent the rights to play. You buy them. If I want to give my rights to someone else, I can.

ginsunuva3981d ago

@above

Can you give someone else your copy of MS Office? Or windows? Or Photoshop? Or any mobile app?

rainslacker3980d ago

I posted this in another article, but feel it relevant to this discussion.

Here's how it works in software. We can thank the courts for leaving this up in the air, and not having a actual stance on the issue for God knows what reason.

With most software purchases, you are not buying the actual code. The disc you receive is nothing more than a distribution medium, not unlike a download.

What you are purchasing is a license to play the code in the manner it is intended, such as on a game console. Because it is a license, you and only you are eligible to use it, and in most cases it is considered non-transferable.

So far, for the most part, the actual license is attached to the disc. So when one trades/sells a disc the license is sold with it, along with the distribution method. They are intrinsically linked. Basically, if you have the disc in possession you have permission to use the code and license. So 2nd hand sales continue.(adding:Someone mentioned above that enforcing copyright is rarely enforced. That is more accurate as the license is still sold to the person, but the principal is that it's attached to the media right now).

With this new thing, the license and the distribution method are separated, the way they were always intended to be, much like DD. What you are buying is the license and the use and ownership of that license is outlined based on what the provider wants(The TOS), and stipulates whether or not you can transfer it to someone else(You usually can't). As such, MS is within their legal rights to charge for someone else to use it, or to charge to facilitate the transfer of that license to another person(the fee in this case), or worse yet strip your right to use that code at a moments notice(account ban for instance). The physical distribution medium in this case is just a convenience for the retail shopper, or for those that don't have fast internet...or whatever.

MS has been doing this for quite some time with their retail releases of their software packages and OS's. It's nothing new for them. In this case, the license is attached to a person(account actually), whereas their software packages are attached to a machine.

NOTE:
This is why it's legal. Not a moral judgement on whether it's ethical. Another thing to note, the EU ruling on DD resale is a step forward in ownership rights of software, however even Steam has taken measures to circumvent it, so it's not going to be a simple issue that is easily resolved.

2nd Note:
On the stripping away your rights to use the software, this could get hairy if all licenses were taken away from a user. There is an expectation among the consumer to be allowed to use their product based on the terms of sale, and that term of sale does not always extend into the terms of service. Again it's a tricky issue, but Steam did it with their users by forcing them to accept a new TOS or lose access to their games. I'm not aware of any litigation over that issue, but the courts may have sided with anyone who brought a case because of it. Again, not trying to debate the morality or ethnicity of this, just pointing it out.

Tetsujin3980d ago

@gin

You purchase those programs you mentioned for 1 use (sometimes multiple depending), so in theory you could buy Windows however never use it, sell for a higher $, and no one would ever notice because it hasn't been used prior to someone selling it (again unless it's a multi license). All your paying for is some sort of phone tech support (and even then sometimes it's still paid), and updates you really don't need outside the occasional "oops."

At the same time I can find open source versions of about 90% of paid software for free, and share it however I want, because in the ToS the only real important parts are: Can't sell for profit, and the software developers take 0 responsibility for damages caused. The open source community realizes not everyone has $ to spend on software that's already outdated when you can get a free version that's almost better, and even has community support for free.

003981d ago (Edited 3981d ago )

only in the game industry could you have consumers gladly give up there rights to do as they please with their product.

And this guy is a grad A idiot.

Show all comments (68)
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?"

purple1015d 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 ☝️

Zeref4d 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.

DarXyde4d 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.

PhillyDonJawn4d ago (Edited 4d 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.

Einhander19724d 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.

MrBaskerville4d 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.

shinoff21834d 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
isarai5d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref4d 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.

MrNinosan4d ago

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

mkis0073d ago (Edited 3d ago )

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

Einhander19725d 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
Zeref4d 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.

DarXyde4d 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.

Einhander19724d 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.

Einhander19724d 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.

BehindTheRows4d ago (Edited 4d 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.

Zeref4d ago (Edited 4d 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.

Chevalier4d 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.

Tacoboto4d 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.

shinoff21834d 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
Hofstaderman4d 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?

crazyCoconuts4d 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.

Xeofate4d ago (Edited 4d 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.

crazyCoconuts3d 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
ApocalypseShadow17d ago (Edited 17d 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.

darthv7216d 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.

Cacabunga16d 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..

88316d 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 16d 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

Babadook716d 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?”

ifinitygamer16d 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...)

fr0sty16d ago (Edited 16d 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.

ifinitygamer16d 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.

fr0sty16d 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.

16d ago
JBlaze22616d 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 16d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil17d 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

isarai17d 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.

FinalFantasyFanatic16d 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