200°

Microsoft’s backwards policies are hurting the Xbox One

Since the Xbox One was revealed last May, Microsoft has made some major course corrections. The draconian always-online requirements were scrapped, and the execution of used game dealers was stayed, but a number of serious issues still plague the Xbox One. Worst of them all, Microsoft is demanding launch parity for indie ID@Xbox titles. Because of this short-sighted policy, many notable indie devs are steering clear of the Xbox One completely.

Read Full Story >>
extremetech.com
trywizardo3644d ago

that was before a year , and i don't think so , they made it more appalling for a lot of people
i liked the old polices , they felt like a new gen , like a next gen , but having a game on disc with cover art is awesome :D

Kingthrash3603644d ago

^^somebody looking for dat raise.
lol you do realise that the only reason they flipped these outrageous policies is because the preorders were looking like ouya's, right. the x1 would have failed already if thet'd kept them policies, they saved themselves from doom by doing the 180.
maybe you liked the policies, and you know what thats fine. your opinion is yours but dear god its such a unsettling one....wait..you have 1 bub? lol explains alot.

alexkoepp3643d ago (Edited 3643d ago )

It had similar policies to the ones already commonplace for PC games, and you know what - PC gaming is just fine. Microsoft was ready for the future as a lot of us are. Unfortunately there are a lot of people stuck in current procedures and resistant to change, which is really too bad for those of us who are ready to take things to the next level. Oh well... guess we don't get to share our digital games with friends now, thanks guys.

PS - I love being stuck in a disc based console world </s>

Steam and digital FTW.

EL Lanf3643d ago

@alexkoepp

Remember the PC is a more open market. With the policies MS were going with, MS would have likely been the only retailer of XB1 games. Monopolies are bad for consumers (MS has 100% of the XB1 game market).

Steam has resellers such as GMG as well as competition from other digital stores like origin, uplay, gamersgate, GOG etc. Not to mention that PC as a platform isn't intrinsic to steam unlike XB1 and MS.

IMO MS would be better holding off a generation until internet speeds are higher and more reliable and having some anti-monopoly system in place.

Having steam like policies would be progressive (I don't like having a disk library either) but you have to remember half the advantages of steam are because of PC's different nature with things such as no backwards compatibility issues since games aren't tied to a generation of consoles.

At the end of the day, us gamers should want what is good for the consumer and MS's policies had a large element of anti-consumer (although features like family sharing would be great). Why has Sony trumped MS so hard already? Their choices were highly pro-consumer. I actually think MS has a better vision for a long-term console future that justifies consoles as different from PCs though but Sony has shown us repeatedly it can adapt fast and be one step ahead whereas MS are constantly playing catchup.

3643d ago
ramiuk13643d ago

exactly.
to alexx below the difference with pc games is the fact there alot cheaper than console games,MS would not allow new games to be sold digital for £22-26 in uk like all pc games are.

look at digital on the stores(boths sides) they charge more than retail for digial.

If MS said it would be £25 for all AAA games then i would accept the online DRM like i do with pc.

styferion3643d ago (Edited 3643d ago )

@alex : PC has options,
whether you want to always online or play games offline, or whether you want DRM games or DRM-free games.

I don't recall old Xbox One has this options.

The keyword is not "policies", it's "forced policies". The old Xbox One policies should be just fine if they make it an option like PC gaming did.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3643d ago
iamnsuperman3643d ago (Edited 3643d ago )

The policies were essentially Microsoft taking a large dump on its fan base. The tried to implemented a policy but gave nothing back/a reason for people to accept the policy. I said this at the time. If Microsoft said "We have always on DRM but because of this we are going to lower the prices of our Xbox One exclusives to £$..30-40" I would have been all over it and supported them for making an educated and well thought out step in a good direction. $60 games are too expensive and the model doesn't work. Also these companies (well mainly smaller companies) do loose out to the second hand market

But what they actually did was to come out and say "We have always on DRM" and preceded to stick two fingers up at everyone (the Mattrick 360 comment was just an insult to everyone who had support the 360 and Microsoft's endeavours)

They also proceeded to screw a lot of indie developers with some out dated, restricting, policies. It was only until Sony decided to come up with its own answer to the $60 model problem (I personally think due to the bad press DRM has and now, thanks to Microsoft's attempt, will always have) that they changed for the better

I am glad they have changed (argument for why competition is healthy) as the policies are much healthy but they still have a way to go. The do need to sort out Games with Gold (I actually think owning the game out right is going limit that service) and remove the pay wall for some applications

cfc783644d ago (Edited 3644d ago )

Don Mattrick certainly did the most damage in my opinion was like music to my ears when he was sacked the guy had no idea about what gamers want,Phil Spencer on the other hand being a real gamer (in my opinion) will only push xb1 forward to a brighter console future but he can't do it on his own he needs microsoft to back his plays in an honest way and prove to gamers that they're not the green devil they're perceived to be,theres still lots to be changed but it's early days i hope they make the right decision on launch parity it needs to go it's not helping anyone.

porkChop3643d ago

Mattrick was a moron and he caused severe damage to the Xbox One. Phil really does seem like a more genuine guy though so I'm hoping he can bring some much needed change.

WitWolfy3643d ago

@porkChop Your such a tool, Mattrick only did what the shareholders told him to do at the time. Saying he was the ONLY one who decided to go 24/7 online ALONE is just ignorant.

porkChop3643d ago (Edited 3643d ago )

@WitWolfy

Yes, the shareholders who care solely about making money told Mattrick to tell people to stick with their Xbox 360's if they didn't want an online-only console, instead of making people understand WHY it was necessary. The shareholders told him to confuse people and literally know next to nothing about how the Xbox One and its services actually work. The shareholders told him to go out of his way to ruin the products image.

Give me a break. He was forced to resign because he was an idiot and did NOT do what he was supposed to do, otherwise he would still be working there. Yet now he's stuck over at Zynga, a dying company, and hasn't come back into the public light since he left Microsoft.

Oh and btw, point me to where I ever said he was the "ONLY one who decided to go 24/7 online ALONE". Oh yeah, that's right, I never said that. Nice try though. Don't put words in peoples mouths.

AngelicIceDiamond3643d ago

@cfc Damn wellsaid.

Lets be honest Don Mattrick would of let this E3 play out in our favor even he wouldn't cancel games for Tv. What I think what could of happen is Don would decline games focused each E3 going forward.

While Phil will sustain the amount of games shown through out future E3's.

"prove to gamers that they're not the green devil they're perceived to be,theres still lots to be changed but it's early days i hope they make the right decision on launch parity it needs to go it's not helping anyone."

Agreed MS also needs to put the final nail on that PR and the final vision of what Xbox is and no more changing afterwards. If X1 is for gamers then its for gamers, like I said no more changing from this point on.

I think that's one of the things that's hurting Xbox brand. An Identity crisis.

ShockUltraslash3643d ago

More articles to remind us of what Xbone did wrong and PS4 did right.

ramiuk13643d ago

defo.
it also seems everything the ps3 did bad/wrong MS has done with xbone.
in UK non of the TV stuff works,all the interactive stuff is for the US.
From the very starteverything MS announced was wrong and i think EA had a fair part in it too,Dropping online passes just before isnt coincidence.

Its gonna take MS a long time to recover from this,thye have lost trust of consumer and the core gamerwith all the TV and KINECT crap.

i didnt even think of getting a ps4,i was loyal to XBOX since day 1 and was gonna preorder xbone as soon as possible unti lthey did the event and then that was it,i decided SONY before sony even showed the ps4 as it was obvious MS had lost there way.

The thing they keep doing is lying all time with reallly bad PR.
cloud is 4 xbones
kinect is needed( yet month later isnt)
DRM cant be changed(but then it is)

it just needs to stop and show some working real proof and not bull PR.

dcbronco3643d ago

If it is true that every Xbox One will be capable of being a developer kit, then any Sony Indie advantage will quickly disappear.You can't make it any more accessible than that.As far as launch parity goes, it's important. Anyone paying attention knows a game launching later on a different platform usually gets killed in sales. Of course they want a more even shot. To not see that is what is short-sighted.

DigitalRaptor3643d ago (Edited 3643d ago )

Yes.

Limbo on PS3/Vita got killed in sales. /s

Braid on PS3 got killed in sales. /s

Hotline Miami on PS3/Vita got killed in sales, so much that a sequel is on the way. /s

Octodad on PS4 got killed in sales. /s

Fez on PS3/PS4/Vita got killed in sales. /s

I'm sure Guacamelee! on PC got killed in sales. /s

Let's just see how many other of these PC ports that are going to PS4 get "killed in sales". You are just making excuses. Gamers will generally see games as new when they are on a console. Most people only seem to take notice when it's a AAA disc-based game that comes to another console later. And even then look at how well Mass Effect 2 and BioShock did releasing truly late on PS3.

The parity clause is nothing short of Microsoft being anti-competitive and having a large stick up their bottom about developers choosing to go to the more popular, easier to develop for console with almost double the install base.
------

And the "indie advantage" has already have been firmly established. More games will be out, will have been out for over a year, more developers will already have multiple projects already in the works for PS4, and more developers will always be signed on to make games for PS4. So as much as you like clearly like to dream, the indie advantage is one that cannot be removed - only reduced a bit.

dcbronco3642d ago (Edited 3642d ago )

Someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word usually. Plus if you think Indies won't jump on a $500 dev kit as apposed to one costing thousands you're kidding yourself and the fanboys that will no doubt blindly agree with you. Those developers are Indies for a reason.

DigitalRaptor3642d ago (Edited 3642d ago )

Whilst Sony hands out dev kits? Yeah, I'm sure they have no problems.
http://www.polygon.com/2013... http://www.videogamer.com/n...

But then what happens when those indie devs already have access to a PS4 devkit? They keep on using it, that's what. You're dreaming that the roles will be reversed and devs will completely switch over to Xbone because of a cheaper devkit. A cheaper devkit is still not going to sway from an install base with almost double the potential customers.

uth113643d ago

Microsoft has long has this attitude that they developed from their Windows near monopoly. They think they don't need to listen to what their customers want, instead they should be able to dictate what customers want.

This doesn't work in markets where they don't have a monopoly, just leads to bad PR- but they are slow to learn that!

250°

Microsoft Seemingly Closes Bethesda France

As part of its plans to cut 1,900 jobs, Microsoft has reportedly shut down operations at Bethesda France, letting go roughly 15 people

Read Full Story >>
insider-gaming.com
Hereandthere12h ago

Microsoft should have left them stay 3rd party

GamerRN9h ago

If they are let go, they can be whatever they want. They ARE 3rd party now... 🤦

Barlos7h ago

Yeah, they're also jobless.

GamerRN28m ago

They can form a company if they want, they are just as jobless as if "Microsoft had left them as 3rd party".

peppeaccardo2h ago

"MIcrosoft leaves Bethesda do what they know how to do best" ... close! Oh the irony ....
(Citation from a week old article)

PassNextquestion12h ago(Edited 12h ago)

Bethesda France was made up of roughly 15 people... they couldn't of being doing much

Bethesda France mainly did publishing and marketing within the region

blacktiger9h ago

that's a shame for you to say that, i'm sure Elite loves hearing what you just said.

Profchaos12h ago(Edited 12h ago)

Bethesda France focused on publishing and marketing in the region. And 15 people lost their jobs as part of the closure.

I wonder if this is part of Microsoft's strategy to abandoned physical media or possibly gamepass advertising makes their roles redundant you don't need to market a game as hard when the majority of players get the game as part of a sub which already promoted upcoming games

Tacoboto11h ago

It's France too, there's a high likelihood only 1-2 people on the team even had an Xbox.

Profchaos11h ago

Possibly guven all the leaks we know the Xbox brand is really struggling in the region.

Yi-Long8h ago

Well, if your consoles and games are barely found in any stores any more, of course you're gonna struggle finding consumers ...

XiNatsuDragnel10h ago

Tbh Microsoft I think Bethesda being 3rd party same with Activision would probably more competitive than thus scenario imo

Profchaos9h ago(Edited 9h ago)

I think it would have been better for all parties really especially gamers

TheColbertinator9h ago

The recently purchased Activision French offices might take over all the licensing and marketing for Microsoft in France from now on.

Show all comments (17)
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?"

purple10111d 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 ☝️

Zeref11d 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.

DarXyde10d 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.

PhillyDonJawn10d ago (Edited 10d 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.

Einhander197210d 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.

MrBaskerville10d 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.

shinoff218310d 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.

Profchaos10d 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 10d ago
isarai11d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref11d 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.

MrNinosan11d ago

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

mkis00710d ago (Edited 10d ago )

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

Einhander197211d 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.

11d ago Replies(3)
Einhander197211d ago

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

11d ago
11d ago
Zeref11d 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.

DarXyde10d 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.

Einhander197210d 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.

Einhander197210d 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.

BehindTheRows10d ago (Edited 10d 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.

Zeref10d ago (Edited 10d 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.

Chevalier10d 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.

Tacoboto10d 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.

shinoff218310d ago

Yay steam

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

Tacoboto10d 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 10d ago
Hofstaderman11d 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?

crazyCoconuts10d 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.

Xeofate10d ago (Edited 10d 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.

crazyCoconuts9d 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

FinalFantasyFanatic10d 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
ApocalypseShadow23d ago (Edited 23d 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.

Cacabunga23d ago

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

Crows9023d ago

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

darthv7222d 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.

Cacabunga22d 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..

88322d 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 22d ago
blacktiger23d 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.

fr0sty23d ago (Edited 23d 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.

shinoff218323d 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

Babadook722d 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?”

ifinitygamer23d 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...)

fr0sty23d ago (Edited 23d 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.

ifinitygamer22d 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.

fr0sty22d 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.

22d ago
JBlaze22622d 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 22d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil23d 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

isarai23d ago

Nah, sega actually makes good games

Becuzisaid23d 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.

Profchaos23d 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

Becuzisaid23d 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.

FinalFantasyFanatic22d 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.

Profchaos23d 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)