Approvals 10/3 ▼
gameseveryday (3) - 3458d ago Cancel
Geobros (3) - 3458d ago Cancel
Esler (1) - 3458d ago Cancel
GreenGamers (2) - 3458d ago Cancel
qwerty676 (1) - 3458d ago Cancel
190°

Rise of the Tomb Raider: Strategy Of Microsoft

Microsoft has taken some bold steps in distinguishing the Xbox One as the ultimate gaming console. Not simply content with resting on its own superb line-up of first party titles from the explosive continuation of Master Chief’s adventures to the mind bending temporal high jinks of Quantum Break the company is reaching out to secure a terrific collection of third-party exclusives that’ll shape the future of the console.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community3458d ago
daBUSHwhaka3458d ago

Bring it on.Loved the last game and I'm sure this will not disappoint.2015 is gonna be a great year for xbox owners.

TheWatercooler3458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

Only Microsoft would ever pull a D@*k move like this. They paid for exclusion. Plain and simple. All they care about is sales of new consoles. Being exclusive doesn't benefit current xbone owners one bit. Why? Because this game was already coming to the Xbone. So what difference has it made? All they have done is pay for exclusion because they think it will shift more xbones. The back lash has taught them what a mistake it was.

And the fact that it is only timed (after they outright lied that it wasn't) makes this deal even worse. It makes it pointless infact. It will probably be a waist of money. They have very little studio's so this is all they can resort to. At least Sony have a real commitment to gaming by investing and growing there own games from conception to reality and taking some risks.

There is no company lower than Microsoft in the gaming business.

@Yarbie. By not buying it? err ok. I suppose Microsoft are used to that with their sales getting trounced

umair_s513458d ago

MS is running a business. Was MGS4 not a Sony exclusive last time round and Bayo 2 on Wii U

yarbie10003458d ago

the fact that you've had such an emotional response to a game being exclusive i would say bodes well for Microsoft

GameSpawn3458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

I'm paraphrasing here, but someone could surely find the interview. Microsoft was asked about having their version of Uncharted and responded in reference to the Tomb Raider one year exclusivity buyout with "We'd love to have our [version of] Uncharted, we just don't want to make it".

THIS is why Microsoft is the scum of the gaming industry. Instead of investing in 1st party games and studios they just "commission" 3rd party studios to make all their games. I'm using that word loosely by the way.

What is bad is that even Nintendo puts more effort into their first party offerings -- and without too much effort.

Seriously it would not take much for Microsoft to grow their 1st party studios if they are good about finding and keeping talented developers. Microsoft's problem is that it is run by people who care about money and the bottom line first and constantly seeking out the lowest risk for reward situation possible. Think about it...what is worse...a 3rd party exclusive game failing that had most of the development cost on the 3rd party's shoulders and very little risk from Microsoft or a 1st party game failing that had ALL the cost and risk on Microsoft's shoulders?

From a business perspective you can see why Microsoft has always gone with the former. However business perspective aside, big risks DO pay off. Uncharted is the perfect example and Naughty Dog not only hit it out of the park once, but three freaking more times (UC2, UC3, and LoU). LittleBigPlanet is another risk/reward that paid off well for Sony.

In the end this decision was in poor taste from both Microsoft and Square. Both companies are run by nutbags that have no place in the gaming industry and only stand to further stagnate and hold back the evolution of the gaming industry.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen3458d ago

It's an interesting idea to get exclusivity deals with 3rd party developers, however, Microsoft does run the risk of alienating gamers on other platforms. I'm sure that the Tomb Raider deal did nothing to encourage PS4 owners to run out and buy an Xbox One. For some, it's just another reason not to get an Xbox One.

ScorpiusX3458d ago

That could have happen either way , no matter who secured the deal.this is more of let's compete with UC in some form during that release window.

strangeaeon3458d ago

Microsoft should have had Black Tusk working on their own UC instead of a new Gears. I will get TR because I loved the last game, but I don't think it's fair to PS4 gamers.

OpieWinston3458d ago

@Strangeaeon

That is the worst idea ever... Please go back to what ever corner you crawled out of.

Gears a Billion dollar franchise...

And they've now got plenty of ex Gears devs including Rod helming the project. They'd have been crazy NOT to push Gears.

Considering Gears is pretty much the king of competitive TPS.

Ryan7413458d ago ShowReplies(2)
lelo2play3458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

When Microsoft and Nintendo (remember Bayonetta 2) get 3rd party exclusives, it's very very bad. When Sony get 3rd party exclusives, then it's great.

Such hypocrisy...

I have a PS4 but I can't stand Sony fanboys. They unable to understand that Sony does the exact same thing.

InTheLab3458d ago

There's a difference here and the difference is TR is a long established franchise that really started on Playstation.

No one gives a s$;& about Quantum Break or Dead Rising. Could care less about those games being exclusive even though I like Remedy. Could care less about Ryse as its a dud anyway and even if it was at least decent, exclusives are there for a reason.

But this.... All MS did was pay to delay a game for PS and PC and its bulls$&&.

lelo2play3458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

@InTheLab

You are a perfect example of what's wrong with Sony fanboys. You try to find excuses and justifications where there is none. Simply put, Tomb Raider is a business deal just like many business deals Sony has done with countless 3rd party developers.

For you everything Sony does is perfectly justifiable.

umair_s513458d ago

@lelo2play Agree 100% with you, Bayo 2 is a pristine example also MGS4 on PS3 was equally unfair to 360 owners

GameSpawn3458d ago

Bayonetta and Metal Gear Solid were made exclusive by decision of the developer NOT Nintendo or Sony. In fact MGS4's exclusivity was heavily influenced by Kojima himself. Konami like any 3rd party publisher wanted as many platforms as possible, but at the time Kojima had so much control over the Metal Gear Solid franchise and a powerful position within Konami that his choice to release it solely for PS3 won over (for those that don't know Kojima is VERY MUCH a "PlayStation guy" because of the success of the Solid franchise on the original PlayStation).

I'm sorry that some people are too "jaded" to see past their own hypocrisy.

Tomb Raider's situation is VERY much a different situation as Microsoft initiated the exclusivity by approaching Square with the offer (NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!). All you people are doing is enforcing bad business practices by actually trying to defend them on this.

InTheLab3458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

Way to generalize dude....go back through my comments. Not a fan of Vita or how ass PSN has been this gen. Not a fan of Nintendo and the WiiU. Not a fan of the shady bulls*() MS pulls.

This so called business decision benefits Xbox gamers how? How does this help you? All it does is prevent fans on other platforms from playing the game in 2015 and some of us will probably skip it all together.

I didn't even mention sony let alone defend them so you just have this stock answer for everyone that has a problem with Microsoft. "Well you're a fanboy" is all you have?

How about challenge what I actually said and not bring up conversations you've had with other people?

jb2273457d ago

@lelo

Let's see the facts to back that statement that Sony does exactly what Microsoft did in this situation. Where they were lacking in first party studios & games, and instead of creating more for the industry, they just threw money at a developer to exclude other gamers from continuing a journey they already started on the platform of their choice?

It's like Phil Spencer's reasoning of "wanting an Uncharted type game", when Sony wanted a Halo type game, they created a new ip & gave big funds to a publisher to try to make one…that's good for the industry, more true competition, more games & studios for gamers, more jobs for developers. Rise of the Tomb Raider is a game that was already on the way, it was already coming to everyone, including Microsoft fans so don't use the excuse I see a lot that it might not have happened if they didn't secure a deal w/ MS. There really is no way to spin this deal as being good for gamers, and that whole garbage about "this is a business" doesn't work either because unless you are in the business of creating and selling games, you are a gamer whose desires have absolutely nothing to do w/ the business of the industry & in some cases run completely against those tactics.

lelo2play3457d ago (Edited 3457d ago )

@InTheLab, GameSpawn, jb227

How do you guys know Sony don't pay for 3rd party exclusives games that were originally suppose to be multiplatform?

For example, let's take a look at From Software's PS4 exclusive Bloodborne. With the sales the Dark Souls series had on the X360/PC, don't you guys think Bloodborne would have been a multiplatform game if Sony hadn't struck a exclusive deal? So basically Sony took the game away from the X1/PC gamers. Was that good for gamers ? Was that good for X1/PC Souls fans ? Will that help PS4 gamers that the game is PS4 exclusive? NO... but it will sell more PS4's, just like Tomb Raider will sell more X1's. BUSINESS!

Can you guys see where I'm getting at ?

To sum it up, every PS4 3rd party exclusive could have originally been a multiplatform game, but due to Sony's deals, they are PS4 exclusives. You guys can come up with lame excuses and justifications, but Sony does the exact same thing Microsoft did with Tomb Raider.

So... STOP being HYPOCRITES (if you don't know what it means, look it up).

BTW... no more bubbles :(

GameSpawn3457d ago (Edited 3457d ago )

lelo I'm sorry your out of bubbles, but you are grasping at straws to suit your agenda.

You do know From Software is a small developer that does not have the ability to publish their own games worldwide right? Most of their games are released in Japan first and sometimes ONLY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Demon's Souls (Published by Sony in Japan, Atlus in the US and Namco in Europe)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Demon's Souls was localized by Atlus and Namco, BUT because Sony already owned the right to the IP because of first publishing it in Japan it NEVER could be ported to other consoles. AGAIN DIFFERENT FROM THE TOMB RAIDER SITUATION!!!!

Dark Souls (Published by Namco worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Dark Souls II (From Software only published in Japan, Namco published worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Bloodborne (Being published by Sony Japan Studio and Sony Entertainment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Again because this game is PUBLISHED by Sony, Sony owns the IP. Ratchet & Clank is another example of a game made by a 2nd/3rd party, but published by Sony and thus owned by Sony.

Last I checked Tomb Raider is STILL being published by Square/Eidos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

If I am correct Titanfall, as another example, was NOT published by Microsoft and Microsoft MUCH like Tomb Raider paid for that game, but didn't publish it themselves!!! In fact Titanfall was going to be just like Tomb Raider (a timed exclusive) until EA and Microsoft made a deal behind Respawn's back for complete exclusivity. Thank GOD!! Square has not proven to be this freaking dumb yet.

Again, developing is one thing and publishing is another and 9 times out of 10 the publisher reserves the right to which systems that the final product lands on as the publisher is the one footing the bill to land it on those systems!!!

Please come up with better examples where Sony (or Nintendo) actually paid to keep a game out of Xbox owners hands that they themselves did not end up publishing and again DO NOT say MGS4 because it is already public knowledge that was a decision of Kojima as it is HIS game to do with what he pleases.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3457d ago
DoubleM703458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

You don't have to be loyal to any of these companies. Just bring on the games regardless what console they own. Back in the day Sony didn't just buy IP they would buy the whole studio. Just like they did with Naughty Dog. I don't want to hear any excuses not be a gamer. I guess some of you all are just too young to remember when Sony was the big fish.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3457d ago
qwerty6763458d ago (Edited 3458d ago )

Title was a little misleading, but i guess its to get people to click.

they only hinted at Microsofts strategy to focus more on gaming for like one sentence

then talked about something completely different the rest of the article.

and we already know Microsofts strategy for the game. as Phil Spencer said himself. it was to combat Uncharted 4 next year.

SnakeCQC3458d ago

Making a game that was originally a multi plat into a exclusive was a pretty crappy move imho

mcstorm3458d ago

People seem to forget that Tomb Raider was originally an exclusive on the Saturn so it has a history of moving platforms.

This could be a good move for Microsoft as they could pickup extra sales next year for this game but we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

Spotie3458d ago

An exclusive going multiplat isn't nearly the same, and you know this. Unless the original platform gets left out, you're only expanding your audience; that's generally acceptable.

But cutting off your original fanbase? Who does that?

More importantly, why are so many of you guys so eager to say that's okay?

I got it. From now on, Halo will be exclusive to Nintendo. Makes sense, right?

mcstorm3458d ago

So would you be saying the same thing if it was only on the PS4? Looking at your comment history that's a no.

InTheLab3458d ago

It was never originally exclusive but the Saturn was the lead platform. Eidos assumed Sega would dominate so they developed the game first for the saturn but quickly launched a port along side the Saturn version so there was never any exclusivity. Sony dominated the market share so they focused on the PS. Lara even became the mascot of the PS along with Crash.

Speaking of Marketshare. This still makes no sense anyway you slice it. Alienating the larger market can't possible make up for the millions MS paid for this game and what does this deal do for Xbox One owners? They were getting the game anyway...

mcstorm3458d ago

@InTheLab Its still not an exclusive now its a timed exclusive so it will be coming to the PS4 a few moths after too.

I do agree with you on the side of the PS4 being so far ahead of the xbox one that its a strange decision but we don't know what has gone on in the background on why its coming the 360 and One 1st.

Plus will PS4 users really pickup Tomb Raider the same time UC4 is out?

Im not saying its good or bad for the industry but a lot goes on in the gaming industry we don't know about an never will.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3458d ago
Unarmed_Civilian3458d ago

Get serious, its only a timed exclusive and 6-12 monts a Definite Edition will be released for PC and PS4.

BLow3458d ago

Actually we really never got a straight answer for that. During the announcement, they said exclusive for 2015. I do agree with you with you that it will come. The answer is when. I mean if MS just paid for the holidays then technically it can come out January 1st.But I'm predicting Feb or March 2016. So no sweat off my back. The holidays are going to be stacked with games just to worry about 1. Plus the PS4 version will have improvements anyways.

Oh and I forgot, PS4 has that little game called Uncharted to tide us over. That is assuming that these games don't get delayed and that's a whole other story.

Show all comments (68)
260°

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
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

✔ Fixed
Add/remove tag
Remove all tags other than Bethesda and Microsoft.
Christopher14h agoWhoDisagree(0)Agree(0)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community13h ago
Hereandthere12h ago

Microsoft should have left them stay 3rd party

GamerRN10h ago

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

Barlos7h ago

Yeah, they're also jobless.

GamerRN55m 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

blacktiger10h 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

Tacoboto12h 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 ...

XiNatsuDragnel11h 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

TheColbertinator10h 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?"

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community11d ago
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.

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.

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.

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.

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
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

✔ Fixed
Add/remove tag
remove Xbox add industry and Microsoft tags
cl198323d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(0)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community23d ago
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)