360°

Xbox Live will be free on PCs. So why should Xbox One users pay?

MWEB GameZone writes: "What Xbox Live coming to Windows 10 proves is that, without a doubt, this service never needed a subscription to begin with. If Microsoft is able to offer it to PC gamers at no charge, then it means they can offer it anybody at no charge. "

freshslicepizza3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

because unlike the pc all xbox games are unified with your account and the xbox live tracks and uses certain algorithms to matchmake your online sessions with other xbox live users. then you have features like party chat and skype that also tie into all xbox games.

on the pc you have various stores like steam, gog and origin where you have different accounts. microsoft has no control of that.

console gamers pay for ease of use and plug and play style of gaming. that same convenience factor translates into xbox live.

slasaru013335d ago

it's no longer ease of use and plug and play.
Gigabytes of patches and shutdowns. They are taking money but investing none.

decrypt3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Lol ok.

Ms tried to pull the same crap on PC gamers, they resisted. MS lost. PC gamers new this is a sham, online gaming shold always be free, always has been.

Corporations obviously exploit the fact that the masses (console gamers) have no clue that online always has been free. Hence its basically abuse by them.

Its not just paying to go onlline where console gamers get ripped, paying for DLCs like skins, maps, weapons etc are all things that used to be free via mods. Thank the console gamer for their ignorance willingness to bend over to these corporations that ruined it for the rest of us as well. PC gaming suffers with many of these problems too now. Most games are no longer moddable, dont come with dedicated servers or have servers which are controlled by these corporations. They may kill online support at any moment just to move people to the next game.

Consoles having ease of use lol, gone are the plug and play days. Consoles are essentially locked down PCs now. Patches, Firmware (basically drivers), installations. I rather find Steam easier to use.

Baka-akaB3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Come on , we all know there is no peculiar reason behind this other than "it's the will of the console maker" so you'll take it or leave it . It's the way they decided to mitigate costs or even do benefits .

Same goes for the PSN . They just all figured they had to tie it with game and services deals or free stuff

There is no magic cure making XBL or PSN smoother , and it got absolutely nothing going on over there that isnt better AND free to use on pc .

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Here's the thing about any service that you CHOOSE to pay for...

It's optional... If you don't want to pay for it, don't...

Also...

Games aren't being offered each month for Xbox Live and PS Plus because of people complaining about paying, the games are being offered as perks for being members and adds an incentive for customers who are thinking about getting these services.

The only reason Microsoft made Xbox Live free on PC is because PC gamers wouldn't have paid for it.

Complain all you like. The only way Xbox Live will ever be free is if no one pays for it.

AngelicIceDiamond3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Because MS doesn't want to piss off users who primarily game on PC.

Because PC's free already why charge them now?

Simple.

HollowZbankai3335d ago

pretty sure no online is free. we do pay for internet lol but that should be the extent of what we pay for imo. live and plus are need to lower the rates i think. i still use a ps3 so its free for me for now. i pay for plus anyway tho so meh, i guess ill be ok

UnHoly_One3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

It all comes down to competition.

They can't charge on the PC because they couldn't compete with existing products if they did.

Back in 2002, they gambled that people would pay for it on a console, though, and they were right.

Then PS+ came along, the competition changed, and their service changed with it. "Free" games, Gold not required for Netflix, etc...

It's all about what the market will bear, and millions of XBL and PS+ members prove that the console market is willing to pay for a service like that.

SilentNegotiator3334d ago

I agree. 100% of games with online components make use of XBL. That's a LOT different than an occasional XBL game on PC.

freshslicepizza3334d ago (Edited 3334d ago )

@slasaru01

it is still automatic. you don't have to do anything but update. it also takes investment for cloud computing and servers around the world.

@Baka-akaB

of course it's a money grab. sony offered online gaming for free and still do on the ps3. same with nintendo and steam. i'm only explaining how microsoft gets away with it, there is no competition or alternative on the xbox. it's a closed system where they can mandate certain features and functions among all xbox games that work in unison with one another while keeping track of your friends, achievements and data.

@IGiveHugs2NakedWomen

it's not optional. it is only optional if you choose not to play with others online or play on something besides the xbox with other people.

awi59513334d ago (Edited 3334d ago )

Voice chat isnt that intensive in games. I remember when mumble first came out when you could host the voice server yourself. My raid leader in world of warcraft would host the voice server himself on his connection for 25 people and we had no problem at all talking to each other. But now you have to pay for mumble now it was free in the past because servers are dedicated now. But if you had a decent connection not even really a good one you could host voice chat easy.

UltraNova3334d ago (Edited 3334d ago )

"But one thing is certain: Offering a product for free to one group and at a cost to another is not going to stand and I don’t think Microsoft are going to be able to survive the PR nightmare that comes from it."

This guy was obviously not around the whole PS3/360 gen wasn't he?

Anyhow, if this happens yes its totally unfair for XBOX owners (another middle finger from MS??). MS should get their shit together and either have PC Live users pay the same as the XB1 owners (with an obvious exception for those who want to game on their PC's as well and have already paid for their console version of LIVE) or make Live free for both!

Now if MS does another 180 then Sony must remove paid multiplayer from PSN+ as well.

However, should both MS and Sony want to keep PS plus and Live at$50/60 they should probably offer dedicated servers and free monthly AAA games or significant discounts on all games, like 50%+ significant.

awi59513329d ago

@UltraNova

They cant make us pay for live we just wont buy the games that force us to play online. That will never happen on pc someone will just hack the game and they cant lock windows down like xbox or it will be the death of windows and microsoft.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3329d ago
Foehammer3335d ago

Not a very good point, especially since the title is clickbait and ignores the cost of PS+

The author eventually brings PS+ into the equation, as a reason X1 should sell better; free online play.

But Sony already tied free online play for consoles.

Want to know how it turned out?

The answer is in the fact that PS+ is a pay service.

Why o why3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Turned out alright for a wholes gen despite what the elitists said but hey, they wanted more money.

I want ps online to be free regardless. . No point being an apologist for billion dollar corporations whilst using sony sony sony like you did or ms ms ms in every other sentence. Last gen I saw some downplaying the games ps plus gifted because they were 'rented' for the sole reason being that xbl wasn't gifting anything except yaris racer and some other 1 off. If we dont demand, we have little chance of getting.

I doubt xbl or pso will every be free but they can improve, be it content or quality. Both have reacted to try and match the better facets of the competitors services. We're the beneficiaries. As a sony guy I love the improved online service like im guessing you love the monthly games.

donthate3335d ago

Why:

I kind of disagree. If you want a free service, it exist on PC, Wii U and PS3.

I thoroughly enjoyed using Xbox Live Gold even when it didn't have free games. The service is slick, unified and very well supported. It is even better now with dedicated servers, and has free games so I see no issue of paying.

"Last gen I saw some downplaying the games ps plus gifted because they were 'rented' for the sole reason being that xbl wasn't gifting anything except yaris racer and some other 1 off. If we dont demand, we have little chance of getting. "

and this gen, Sony supporters are ignoring the fact that online play now requires PS+. Point being, there are going to be idiots (fans) everywhere!

There is no real you vs us, it is just all us.

pivotplease3335d ago

I agree it should be free even though I will always be subscribed to plus. I am just hoping that the money can go towards servers more and perhaps the occasional awesome PS+ game. Fingers crossed for more announcements relating to the company's servers at E3 or something.

Why o why3335d ago

Hypocrisy is everywhere. I bit the bullet but I was always a plus member so nothing changed. Am I pissed for those who weren't plus members, yeah. I'm not apologising for Sony. despite that there wasn't some huge chasm that justified the cost in my opinion. Better implementation, yes but it's not like you were getting dedicated servers like some believed. Now I'm seeing those who supposedly didn't care bickering over who's months offerings are 'superior'

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3335d ago
Blaze9293335d ago

this article is stupid. It needs to be asking why PSN is free on PS3/PS Vita and not PS4. That's what y'all really need to be asking.

Xbox LIVE started as a pay service from day 1. And the differences between that, and gaming on any other console at the time made the yearly subscription an obvious choice.

PC gaming started free to play online - and will always be. No one's gonna pay to play online.

What started one way, will pretty much always be that way. Well, expect for PSN on PS4 - which is charging for NO reason.

badz1493335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

"expect for PSN on PS4 - which is charging for NO reason."

XBL charged from the get go and you're like "who cares? it's been like that since the beginning" but somehow now that Sony is charging for PS+, for you they are "charging for NO reason"!

seems legit! /s

Christopher3335d ago

I'll humor you. Likely because of all the extra features on PS4.

Shareplay, streaming, party chat, expanded friends capabilities, and so on.

Add onto that that most of the updates coming are payed for solely on PS+ funding.

pivotplease3335d ago

Yeah... talk to us when Xbox servers are impenetrable as well. Also when Games with Gold manages to become half as good as PS+ (it's still not even halfway there in quantity or quality). Or when Xbox gets the same amount of sharing/streaming options. Dedicated servers were even used on the PS3. I have yet to understand what live users have been paying for other than just cross-game chat on the 360 these past 15 years. That's a lot of money for one feature that has just as much to do with the OS as the network.

Why o why3335d ago

Cheerleaders cheer, nothing new. I'm annoyed Sony are charging even though I've always been a plus member but this is about Microsoft. You don't have to defend everything xbox bro. . .take day off every now and again.

magiciandude3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Shouldn't Sony put those "extra" features behind a paywall instead of the entire PSN? There is no actual reason to charge for PSN on PS4 other than Sony wanting to squeeze as much money out of their fans' wallets as they are willing to let them. :/

O.T. though, MS so needs to make a free version of XBL. That would shake things up a bit for Sony's boneheaded move (at least, IMO).

rainslacker3333d ago

Do we need to ask? Sony saw MS making millions because people on console would pay for online because MS showed that consumers aren't really all that savvy or demanding. Sony tried to make money with PS+, but the idea of free games cheap wasn't appealing enough to bring in the millions. So for the next gen, Sony decided to charge for online. They don't charge for it on the PS3 because they said they never would. Can't say for the Vita.

Doesn't take much thought to figure all that out does it? Or do you just want to be mad at Sony for the sake of it?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3333d ago
Christopher3335d ago

Because PC users won't be using XBO dedicated servers or services nor will they be getting constant update and support in the form of apps and firmware updates directly from MS?

I dunno. Just thinking.

DarkOcelet3335d ago

I still think they should make multiplayer for free. Leave XBL gold for premium offers and free games and let people enjoy the the multiplayer without shoving in another 60$ each year.

IrishSt0ner3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

Cross-play will definitely require XBL dedicated servers. The social ecosystem is in the Xbox app already, smartglass also uses most of the xbox ecosystem. That only leaves apps, updates & premium features.. which isn't much comparatively, and nothing compared to the PC competition of Steam.

Personally I recently ended a 10yr active subscription, and intend to take full advantage of Xbox Live on PC.

avengers19783335d ago

Maybe the thought is... People that will use XBL on PC already have a 360 or XB1, so they are not charging for it on PC. Maybe it won't have as many features as on the consoles. If you are a PC gamer you wouldn't use XBL for Netflix, Hulu, Skype, etc... Plus a lot of games people play online on Xbox like COD and BF are already free to play online on PC.

In no way does this suggest MS are going to stop charging for XBL on consoles.

ssj273335d ago

Monopoly, they have no competition on their system and they can force people to pay for thing's that should be free like dlc, online play etc etc.
There is no monopoly in the pc, if you don't agree or like one service there are others. On a xbox there is onlionly live, on the ps4 thrrr is only psn. Monopoly allows them to do whatever they want and this shows how evil this corporations are, they abuse their power and don't care about their customers.

medman3335d ago

Microsoft are too used to soaking the sheep, and the sheep are too eager to keep paying. I jumped off the live gold meat wagon this past January, but only after they removed so much content from behind the paywall. I don't have a xbone yet, still have my 360, ps4, and ps3. I know they haven't removed stuff from behind the paywall for the xbone the way they have for 360, which to me is a slap in the face of gamers who ponied up and bought that system. To me, the value of psplus free games is a bargain, while live often had me wondering what I was paying for, apart from great online multiplayer stability, for the most part.

Azzanation3334d ago

Its a great point however to console gamers, there defence is they invested 3 billion+ in hardware and they sell them at a loss. This is there only form of profit if they were to stay alive in the console market. Nintendo don't charge but they also make cheaper systems and there AAA games make up the rest.

WellyUK3334d ago

Live going free would cause it to slowly end up going down hill, it's better than PS+ by miles despite all the fan boys. Reason why PS online has always been behind Xbox live is due to them not charging for it so the service was never as good. Even at the moment PS+ is unreliable and slow this should change as they now charge for it which should be better in the long run.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3329d ago
HanCilliers3335d ago

Ouch, this is not going down well with Xbox's core customers

bananaboats3335d ago

I dont see a problem with it. PC users have tons of options to them so having a service that needs to be paid for no PC gamer will go to it. This doesnt bother me one bit. But the fanboys are fapping at this as another reason to downplay the One.

WellyUK3334d ago

PC players wouldn't use it if they charged for it. GFWL barely worked even if they charged for it, it would of only died quicker. Competing with steam with a sub fee is never going to work.

plut0nash3335d ago

What part of Xbox Live is coming to PC?

lord zaid3335d ago

My understanding is that you will be able to access it in the same you do on you Xbox.
So all of it, I guess

plut0nash3335d ago

Well. If this is step number 1 to make XBL free, then the games stay on Xbox Live and get streamed on PC. Very big win-win. You still need a Xbox One though.

DanzoSAMA3335d ago

Xbox Live will be free on PC ?? do u mean Xbox APP ??

Lol, of course will be free..

Bladesfist3335d ago

Simple. PC Gamers have choice. Why would we ever pay for Live?

lelo2play3335d ago (Edited 3335d ago )

^^
THIS.

I only pay for PS+ simply for the PS4 games... but the PS4 "offerrings" untill now haven't been stellar. I don't care for the PS+ multiplayer, I have my PC for that. Don't think I will renew my PS+ account...

As for XBL Gold, don't have it.

Why o why3335d ago

Pc community is far stronger than us console gamers. They take less s#/+. We turn into apologists. The pc platform or its gamers aren't without fault but they sure know how to put their feet down quicker

nitus103334d ago

PC users take less s%;t and are "stonger" than their console counterparts? Hmm! well that really depends on the PC user.

Unfortunately many PC users treat their machine as an appliance or worse yet some sort of "magic" box, so people like that would be the perfect target for all manner of selling and malware.

Of course there are computing aware people and these are the ones that won't take s%;t but these people are very much in the minority.

Choosing to game on a console or a PC is really up to the player's preference, both have their pluses and minuses.

Show all comments (131)
270°

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
Hereandthere16h ago

Microsoft should have left them stay 3rd party

GamerRN13h ago

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

Barlos10h ago

Yeah, they're also jobless.

GamerRN4h ago

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

peppeaccardo5h ago

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

ChasterMies1h ago

I think Microsoft and other game publishers are letting people go because they think ai will replace them. Doesn’t matter how much profit they make. They were always going to be let go.

PassNextquestion15h ago(Edited 15h 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

blacktiger13h ago

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

Profchaos15h ago(Edited 15h 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

Tacoboto15h ago

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

Profchaos14h ago

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

Yi-Long11h ago

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

XiNatsuDragnel14h ago

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

Profchaos12h ago(Edited 12h ago)

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

TheColbertinator13h 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 (18)
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.

DarXyde11d 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.

PhillyDonJawn11d ago (Edited 11d 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.

Einhander197211d 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.

MrBaskerville11d 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.

DarXyde11d 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.

Einhander197211d 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.

Einhander197211d 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.

BehindTheRows11d ago (Edited 11d 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.

Zeref11d ago (Edited 11d 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.

Tacoboto11d 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?

crazyCoconuts11d 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.

crazyCoconuts10d 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.

darthv7223d 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.

FinalFantasyFanatic23d 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)