420°

Take-Two: Xbox Game Pass Style Services 'Don't Make Sense For Frontline Titles'

During Take-Two's latest earnings call yesterday, chairman and chief executive officer Strauss Zelnick was asked about how the company feels about subscription models from a business perspective.

Read Full Story >>
purexbox.com
Jin_Sakai1397d ago

Of course you’d say that considering GTA5 sold 150 million copies and RDR2 sold 38 million copies. Not every game has that luxury though.

Luckily Microsoft have 23 studios that can put their games on Game Pass and make deals on top of that for some big 3rd party games such as Back 4 Blood day one.

Darkborn1396d ago

And they can lose money on every one of those 23 studios. They already said currently, and before this crazy few months of outriders and back 4 blood and before the Bethesda acquisition was finalized, that gamepass already bled money. Now their swimming in deficit spending. They get to fund games for millions of dollars, and spend millions of dollars on gamepass deals and then barely make anything for it.

Darkborn1396d ago

I'll add this, they said they had 25 million subscribers, how many of them do you think are on pc? So they lose out almost certainly on that avenue of profit from their 30% storefront cut that epic says is outrageous. Even if 5 million of those gamepass subs are on pc, look how much they are ponying up for free. They might as well go the epic games store route and just let people login for free games.

TheHan1396d ago

@DarkBorn; You couldn’t be further from the truth.

Darkborn1396d ago

Did they not say it's not sustainable? That means it doesn't make profit.

gamer78041396d ago

Most subscription models lose money for the first 2 years. It’s how the model works. The goal is to get enough consistent subscribers that you have a predictable revenue stream which cfo’s love. It’s not that complicated

brewin1396d ago

When youre a 3 trick Pony like they are, yeah it doesnt make sense. They have GTA, NBA and Red Dead. Nobody cares about anything else from them, so it wouldnt make sense for THEM to do that with their limited catalog! He cannot speak about other companies, only that HE thinks it doesnt make sense for HIS company. And the fact that he allowed all of his companies big titles to be on GP says alot. Clearly they made some money there or they wouldnt continue to put them there. Also of note is he said its a great way to menetize catalog titles, so it clearly works in some capacity in his eyes.

MS has millions and millions of GP subs and their profit is higher than its ever been in Xbox history! How does that happen if its not working? Microsoft is not losing money, their profits were outstanding last quarter and the future only looks brighter.

Youre just a dirty troll anyway, you were just in another thread shitting on me for commenting on PS articles, and yet here you are sticking your dirty nose in MS articles. You dont even play Xbox so STFU and get off the Xbox articles trollololololo

neutralgamer19921396d ago

gamer7804

Netflix made it's first profit in 2021 so it was way more than 2 years

Jin

Most big AAA games sell 5-10 million+ so GP isn't a good option for vast majority of big budget games. Even 5 million equals to $350 million. Right now Ms maybe willing to write some checks to get 3rd party games but once their studios start producing GP will become Ms 1st party service(and nothing is wrong with that since there are a lot of studios)

TheHan

Xbox game pass will not make a profit at $10 $15 $20 or $25. It will only make profit if Ms charges $29.99 with 6 months commitment. But I don't think Ms are trying to make profit with GP they just want to grow and establish Xbox brand

brewin

Calm down man it's just a opinion from another person enjoy what you like. And take two have a lot more IP's than just the 3 you mention. Mafia, max Payne, bully, bioshock to name a few

Your comment sounds like a kids comment about millions of subscribers. Those millions don't equal to profit that's a fact whether you like it or not. Xbox as a brand maybe making money but GP is bleeding money and that's what Ms themselves said(new services take a lot of early investment to establish)

Lore1396d ago

@The Han

LOL. Where is your argument to counter what he is saying? The financial evidence are a clear indicator that this is 100% not sustainable and it is only a matter of when Xbox’s parent company Microsoft will stop funding the endeavor

Jin_Sakai1396d ago

“And they can lose money on every one of those 23 studios.“

You don’t know that. Regardless, I’m not complaining when I’m saving $70 on those games.

1396d ago
Lightning771396d ago

@Dark they made 2.3 billion from software and memberships. Xbox in total has made 15.7 billion in revenue. Xbox gamepass played a large part in increasing sales and revenue.

You gotta do research man.

Automatic791396d ago (Edited 1396d ago )

@Darkborn

Lies and deceit.

agnosticgamer1396d ago

Please disclose all the financial records that you have. You are making strong allegations for a program where virtually no financial records have been disclosed not to mention Xbox games and services have generally been an increase in revenue during their quarterly financial releases.

Sure it is probably bleeding some money I would imagine. I have no factual records saying it is bleeding money right now but the service is growing and probably has around 25+ million subscribers by now. A service like this obviously has high risk and high reward. Microsoft knows the details. You do not.

agnosticgamer1396d ago (Edited 1396d ago )

@Darkborn
"Did they not say it's not sustainable? That means it doesn't make profit."

Phil Spencer actually said the opposite.

“There’s no plan for us to do anything like that; we like the value that Game Pass is today, and from a business model it’s completely sustainable the way it is,” Spencer added."

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2...

I would like to note that doesn't confirm if they are making or losing money. It could mean the small amount they are making is good. Or the marginal amount of money they are losing to grow a brand is completely justified for a brighter future outlook for a Trillion dollar company.

Darkborn1396d ago (Edited 1396d ago )

@agnostic I can't find the article but I saw it on n4g a couple months ago where he literally said word for word "its not sustainable" but in context, he meant at this time.

https://www.google.com/amp/...

https://www.google.com/amp/...

Also it's good to know that your 2020 article was before they tried and failed to double the price of Xbox live and that I'm sure was a way to make profit.

Atom6661396d ago

Agnostic just showed you what you misquoted. Just admit you were mistaken and move on..

The lack of profitability is more about the opportunity losses elsewhere. That's what they're sacrificing to build the subscription base.

But despite this, revenue numbers for their gaming division have continued to grow; Microsoft as a whole has continued to post stupidly high profits; and we've seen them willing to pay $7.5b cash and not hesitate to make those games exclusive.

They're OK if Gamepass isn't profitable for a long, long time. As a consumer, I'm not too worried about 2-trillion dollar Microsoft's financials regardless. I'm sure they appreciate your concerns, though.

glennhkboy1396d ago

Sustainability & profitability are 2 different things. Sustainability means you don't get bankrupted & can stay in business. GamePass, like Netflix, Disney+ , HBO, Apple TV, are all still in business, right? So that is sustainability. From MS official earning report, gaming is making a profit as a whole. So GamePass is generate a profit (or not losing that much of money).

1nsomniac1396d ago (Edited 1396d ago )

… and yet their Xbox division has earned its biggest profits ever this year already and we’re only 8 months in…. Bleeding money…. 😭

DOMination-1395d ago

You say that 5 million sales is $350m of revenue.. but that's completely simplistic and inaccurate. When you release a physical game, you have to pay for the production and then pay distributors and then the retailer also gets a cut.

In comparison, Game Pass is may seem like less revenue but provides more opportunity for profit. They are only paying for servers. Which are usually expensive but fortunately, Azure is a very profitable venture for Microsoft. Even Sony is a customer.

5 million sales for one game versus 25 million subscribers paying $10 or $15 per month. They may be losing money right now as the service is still growing the delusion that it is or will continue to be "bleeding money" is absurd. Because if it was.. they wouldn't do it. It doesn't matter if the company makes $15B profit every quarter, no corporation is a charity, they would never allow a service to bleed money just for the fun of it.

S2Killinit1395d ago

To top it off, It will not be sustainable from consumers side either when they end up paying more if they want to play everything that they would normally want to play and some of the games aren't on Gamepass.

gravedigger1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

Quote :

'll add this, they said they had 25 million subscribers,...

They didn't. Not officially. MS didn't report GPU sub numbers for a 7 months now ( 18 mil. back in January 2021 ) They've only mentioned growth.

thesoftware7301395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

@Darkborn

Yeah how long ago was that? really I don't recall. I think your use of words are hyperbole for sure "Bled money". That type of wording is most commonly used for a failed attempt and GP is definitely not a failed attempt.

MS actually posted A profitable year and in the console space had the best quarter in a long time, spin that as you may but they are definitely not "Bleeding Money". Companies do projected loss VS profit and have projected numbers, Everything they have done has been 'Projected' and they have been successful thus far.

Besides, why do you care so much about a billion dollar companies bottom line? you are on the consumer front, be happy with a spectacular service at a spectacular price as the consumer that is most important let MS run their business they have people smarter than you and I crunching billions of dollars, they are ok lol.

brewin1395d ago

Do some math and it's not hard to see how much money they actually making on this. Last I read they had 30 million subscribers now 30 million * $10 a month = 300 mil x 12 mos is 3.6 billion.

PlayStation profits fiscal year 2020 we're only 3.23 billion. Here we have Microsoft making more off just Game Pass subscriptions than Sony's ps division is making across everything subscriptions, game and console sales, etc. You still think theyre not making money off this? That's completely asinine they're definitely not losing money. Not 3.6 bill doesn't even factor the money they're making off the game sales they do make console sales peripherals etc. That's strictly just Game Pass income. And it's probably even more than that because a lot of people have Game Pass ultimate which is $15 a month not 10.

Your Fanboy argument loses to the numbers every time. Game Pass is a great service Microsoft is running at the right way and giving gamers the most bang for their Buck no matter how you slice it.

EvertonFC1395d ago

It's scares me the disagrees you got.

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 1395d ago
Sayai jin1396d ago

Smh. I had a comment, but....

S2Killinit1395d ago

From your comment above
You maybe paying more than 70 per game if you end up buying games not on gamepass. Its not like with gameplass you would be playing more games. Unless you are someone that normally plays an enormous amount of games, you may end up paying more for your games than you normally would.

CYALTR1396d ago

That all makes sense to me. I think getting AAA games for day 1 release from 3rd party publishers will continue to be a tough sell unless MS ponies up a lot of cash up front, which they are certainly able to do if they choose to. 1st party titles make much more sense, thus MS buying up a bunch of developers to increase their 1st party selection. I think MS already understands this, as it seems to reflect their model, which seems to be successful, at least to this point. Most of the 3rd party titles that are available are from indies, AA titles, or older "catalogue" titles from AAA pubs, trying to squeeze the last bit of revenue out of a game.

As far as I can see, that model is working for MS at this point, time will tell if it is successful in the long run. I think it is totally possible, and maybe even beneficial to all if their are a variety of gaming models available, rather than 3 companies trying to beat each other up seeing who can do the same thing the best.

Sciurus_vulgaris1396d ago

People shouldn’t expect Gamepass to include big budget AAA 3rd party games at launch. Studios and publishers would ask MS to pay a high premium for new, big budget, day one Gamepass AAA.

glennhkboy1396d ago

Why shouldn't? MLB the Show 21 is the perfect example. Does GamePass hurting the sales of MLB the show 21? No. According to Sony themselves, it double their own estimate. We will never know how much MS has paid MLB to get the GamePass Day one right. But the end result work for all 4 parties (Sony the developer get paid & double the sales, MLB the publisher got a big cheque, MS on GP subscription got boost in PR & keep the subscription number, me the subscriber got to play the game at no extra cost).

Sciurus_vulgaris1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

@glennhkboy

MLB the Show 21 on Gamepass day one was probably a promotional deal. The franchise had never been on Xbox before. Having the title featured on Gamepass probably allowed MLB 21 to reach a wider audience. I

I don’t think Microsoft paid a large sum for MLB on Gamepass. Nor, do I think MLB 21 would drive up Gamepass subscriptions. To me it seems Microsoft is aiming to make Gamepass more-and-more first-party-focused overtime.

neutralgamer19921396d ago

Yes people don't realize how much it costs to get those 3rd party AAA games on GP. Games make their biggest profits within first 4-6 weeks(selling at full price) so if a publisher thinks their game will move 3 million copies on Xbox series x, and once they put it on GP it sells only 1 million than Ms will have to cover the other 2 million in sales( 2 million at $70 a copy is $140 million and by having the game on GP Ms may not be able to take their full 30%

Rude-ro1396d ago

Businesses do not work like that per the subscription aspect though.
It is typically based on eyes on the product.
Will Microsoft front a bill to get a third party game on the pass? Yes… but they would not just cover what it would lose in sales.
No business goes off of hypothetical sales.
It would be fee to agree to it and then the data collected per play time.

rakentaja1396d ago (Edited 1396d ago )

Take Two doesn't have to worry about the console business, Sony also. That's why they're so negative about the Game Pass (less profit). Microsoft is trying to save the Xbox as a brand and they have to make such decisions, mainly because the last generation was so bad.

ReadyPlayer221396d ago

ORRRR, Microsoft sees their hated rivals at Amazon, Apple, and Google making subscription style services to mass spread gaming to small devices and they think "hmmm, we have a massive gaming brand already, let's crush them before they even begin."

You fanboys think Microsoft as company cares about Sony as a company, they don't. Xbox and Playstation are competitors. Microsoft and Sony are not.

franwex1396d ago

Ding, ding, ding.

It’s easy to get tunnel vision, but you pretty much got it. Microsoft is competing with other tech giants.

Lightning771396d ago

If I remember there was heavy speculation that the main reason why MS bought out Bethesda, was To keep Amazon and Google from potentially snatching them up. Amazon is said to be struggling hard to get teams together to make a proper exclusive game. The next best thing would be to buy a highly rated studio to make games for them like a Bethesda or WB Games. Instead of building a long and expensive venture such as a studio.

glennhkboy1396d ago

Actually, MS is in the gaming business even longer than Sony. MS was one of the biggest PC game publisher in the early 90's before they create the OG Xbox. MS pc games, like Flight Sim, pre-dated the PS1.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1396d ago
Petebloodyonion1396d ago

And every time I see someone post Xbox lost the generation or suck so bad well I have to ask
How come 3rd party publishers are still releasing titles on the system?
Do you still see big games coming out on Stadia or Luna?

Deathdeliverer1396d ago

I think this makes perfect sense and aligns with how I see it. Indies that think they might get overshadowed by other titles might make more and do better on gamepass. It’s a gamble for them or anyone to get on gamepass, but Dave’s garage band 2 might place its bets on gamepass instead of count on individual sales. If Dave’s garage band turns into a mega hit they’d be kicking themselves in the butt because they could have made a lot more with individual sales. Grand theft auto has no reason to gamble. They will give your subscription a few months after it’s been out years.
Even games not as big as grand theft, like Ori would be better off sold individually, but I’m sure Microsoft made it lucrative.
To court these big companies with AAA titles Microsoft has to lay down some big cash and who knows how many guarantees. Yes Microsoft as a whole has money, but in business everything is divisions. They all are responsible for the contribution ($) to the whole. You guys that seem to think “aww Microsoft has money, it’s fine” are sorely mistaken. Even your grocery store has a Produce department for example. It’s sales go to the whole, but if it’s struggling with profitability it lowers total store profitability. That extra $1,000 the Deli made from its sale doesn’t go to the bottom line, it makes up produces deficit. If produce was profitable then delis money would have been money in the bank.
Microsoft as a company, sure it’s fine. All this money spending by Microsoft game division with elusive returns all seems like one hell of a gamble to me.
It’s either going to pay off somehow down the road, or some cuts and positions will be posted.

ECHOINFINITY1396d ago

As a PS5 owner I have to say gamepass makes Xbox appealing now that Microsoft actually has console exclusives coming. But other than Halo this year and Starfield next year, I won't be tempted to pick one up before holiday 2022 at the earliest.

Godmars2901395d ago

Thing is, GP isn't a sustainable model for AAA budget games. For 3rd parties let alone MS.

Its either going to collapse at some point or the price will increase.

ECHOINFINITY1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

Yeah I can't imagine it being sustainable if they allow their 1st party studios to have AAA budgets for developing big games. It does bring amazing value, but I personally have limited time to game and have to pick and choose what I play. Very few heavy hitters on game pass for me compared to PS5. And next year PS5 is getting Horizon 2 and GOW Ragnorok. That'll be hard to top imo.

Godmars2901395d ago

How is it a "great value" when, as is, its little more than a non-sustainable lure?

ECHOINFINITY1395d ago (Edited 1395d ago )

It's still great value for consumers when you get all 1st party games day 1. If Sony offered that I'd be stoked. Just because it's not sustainable for the company doesn't mean the consumers don't get a good deal, however long it ends up lasting.

Who knows, if streaming really takes off Microsoft might get enough subscriptions through the game pass app to make it more sustainable since they are working on getting it on so many different platforms. Even still, they need more heavy hitting exclusives before I'd consider buying in to that ecosystem.

Godmars2901395d ago

Again, things like GP aren't sustainable. They aren't even healthy for the industry, much less a company like MS which has had to buy support which having issues with in house production.

ECHOINFINITY1394d ago

Fair enough. Buying zenimax did feel like quite a weak move. After 20 years in the industry it is sad that they hadn't built quality in house studios, but instead had to resort to killing Bethesda for Playstation fans. It'll be interesting to see how gamepass plays out and how long they can take a loss for.

Show all comments (72)
220°

Shuhei Yoshida warns subscription services could become 'dangerous' for developers

'If the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry.' -Shihei Yoshida

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
Sonyslave32d ago

🙄 same guy who said 80$ is a steal lol and according to him M$ shouldnt put good on a services🤣 wtf

Obscure_Observer1d 16h ago

Talks about "innovation" while all his previous company is focused on is GaaS and Remasters. Smh.

This guy is a walking contradiction.

pwnmaster30001d 14h ago

This makes no sense at all.
What does his PREVIOUS company have to do with him and his statement??
Did he have a say on what they are doing? Could of sworn that was Jim Ryan’s fault?

Outside_ofthe_Box1d 12h ago

"This guy is a walking contradiction."

The irony

Profchaos1d 2h ago (Edited 1d 2h ago )

Yet he was In charge and led the PlayStation to overtake xbox

Console VR was birthed because if him he pushed the whole psvr project if that isn't innovative then what is.

Doesn't matter how many alts you use to try and constuct ab alt narrative shu is highly respected in the industry and has done as much for gaming as some of the best names in the industry

Obscure_Observer11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

@Profchaos

I don´t care what he did in the past.

Sony didn´t cared for him either as he was forced to accept a role as CEO of Indie games or get out! After everything he done for the company.

https://www.eurogamer.net/f...

I been seeing LOTS of innovative day one games on Gamepass (Including Clair Obscur) and all I´ve been seeing for Playstation first party @Full Priced is mostly (but not only) GaaS and Remasters. Deny all you want, that´s the truth.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 11h ago
XiNatsuDragnel2d ago

I can agree with that on some level

robtion1d 8h ago

Subscription services are absolutely awful. They have essentially destroyed the movie industry and unfortunately gaming may be next.

In the long term you will end up needing 10 different subscriptions and the prices will keep going up while the quality keeps going down.

MrDead1d 22h ago

Subscription services have f***ed the movie industry and it's work force, caused massive studio buyups by companies like Disney consolidating huge parts of the industry under one roof and have creatively sterilised the IP's they've gobbled up. The same thing is happening to gaming, MS being the main greedy piggy.

goken1d 6h ago

Well… if you’re talking about the US movie industry, then I couldn’t agreed with you more.
But the movie industry isn’t just the US. For some other countries, it’s been considered good. Like where i am, the movie industry here used to be terrible, now it’s a bit less terrible. Mostly this is because in the past movies only can make money mostly on it’s cinema run, but now after the cinema run they can get some funds from the subscription services. Which helps significantly.
But these movies mostly suck due to the low budgets and general lack of talent lol

Vits1d 18h ago

I get what he's saying, but I don’t think we need subscription services to see a lot of the problems he's pointing out. All we really have to do is look at the gaming industry over the last two console generations. Even without subscriptions, the big AAA publishers have already been moving in a direction where almost every game feels like it's built from the same template. It’s all about streamlined, safe design choices that are meant to appeal to the widest possible audience. At this point, you could probably ask an AI to make a AAA game from a certain publisher and it would spit out something pretty close to what they’re actually making.

Now, about the whole “walled garden” thing... that’s not some future problem, it’s already here. Consoles have always worked like that. Their entire business model is based on controlling what gets released on their platforms. Sure, maybe they’re not as locked down as the extreme examples people bring up, but the end result is similar. If you’re not making the kind of game the platform holder wants, you’re probably not getting through the door. We’ve seen it with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, even Valve does this in its own way with Steam. So yeah, the issue isn’t new or exclusive to subscription services.

Would a subscription-only future make that problem worse? Sure, it definitely could. But I don’t think we’re heading in that direction anytime soon. Unless physical hardware truly becomes a thing of the past and everyone switches to streaming games, I just don’t see subscriptions becoming the dominant model. They’ll stick around as an option, but I doubt they’ll take over completely.

Now, what will take over completely is digital media, and that’s a whole different issue that’s going to hit us a lot sooner. PC and mobile are already basically 100% digital, and that makes up around 70% of the gaming market. The remaining 30% is consoles, and even there we’re seeing the shift. Sony’s removing the disc drive from boxed consoles, Nintendo is releasing just one super expensive 64GB cartridge for their new system, which means almost all third-party publishers will end up going digital and Microsoft is mostly digital already. You either get a digital-only or a physical box with disc that only acts as a activation key. So yeah, that future’s already knocking on the door and the damage will be enormous.

CrimsonWing691d 17h ago

Right, because then you can’t sell individual games at $80, which is an incredible value for the consumer!

BLow1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

I find this statement quite telling. Apparently a certain fan base wasn't buying games at $60 or $70 dollars either. That's why the Gamepass model exists with day and date. What was the excuse then?

We as gamers want it all but don't want to pay for anything. Well, I take that back. A good chunk of them. You don't have to buy a game at $80. Wait for to go down in price. Most gamers have a massive backlog. Play those games until the one you wants drops and n price. Simple

MDTunkown1d 7h ago

I doubt Mario will go down at price

goken1d 6h ago

I never buy any games at full price, it’s up to the consumer to wait for a price cut.

Generally I don’t buy above $10, normally around $5. So don’t agree with 80 70 60? Just wait a bit

CrimsonWing6923h ago

Totally fair if that approach works for you, but the flip side is that some dev studios do rely on full-price sales to stay afloat—especially smaller or AA teams. The ‘just wait for a sale’ mindset can really hurt games that aren’t backed by massive budgets or publishers.

It’s also kind of a bummer to finally see a game release you’ve been hyped for, only to feel like you have to wait another year or two just to get a decent discount.

That said, I think the deeper issue is with bloated dev budgets. It’s wild seeing games like First Berserker or Expedition 33 launching at $50 while still managing to look great and make a profit. Meanwhile, some AAA studios say $70 isn’t enough to break even. That raises real questions about where the money’s going and whether the pricing problem is actually a budgeting problem.

thorstein19h ago

To me, it depends on who made it and who will profit.

I bought No Man's Sky back in 2016. They gave me all updates, PSVR,PS5, and PSVR2 versions all for free.

That makes it worth every dollar I spent. Same with Balatro, Stardew Valley, Dave the Diver etc.

Chevalier1d 5h ago

Yeah weird it's like a certain fan base that doesn't buy ANY games and their sales cratered that was why prices has gone up to $80...... hmmm...... they've the same one that has tried to buy up the industry and now has to release games on competing platforms to be viable now...... but you know the studio/company slipped my mind

goken15h ago

You have a point on the bloated development budgets.

I mean look at black myth wukong’s $80m budget vs the $150-200m (possibly more) budget of concord.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 15h ago
Show all comments (36)
410°

Xbox's first-party handheld has been sidelined

Xbox's handheld ambitions continue unabated, but the focus is shifting towards improving Windows 11 for third-party handhelds — for now. The Xbox Series X 'Melrose' successor is safe, with development continuing at full pace.

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
2d ago
2d ago
2d ago
shadowT2d ago

Is there really a market for handhelds next to mobile?

Vits1d 18h ago

If they run the same games as the main home console, then yeah, sure.
But if they need specially tailored games just for them? Probably not, unless there isn't a home console for comparison (see Switch).

RaidenBlack1d 6h ago (Edited 1d 6h ago )

I am kinda low-key happy this happened.
Dont want another Series S situation (games to be designed from 4 to 12TF scale and not 10 to 12TF).
Hope PS follows suit as well. Tablet SKU sharing with console for 10th gen, will just continue the cross gen -esque development/design phase/nature.
Want a proper 20+ only TF rasterized next-gen plz (+ frame-gen and the lot).
If anybody wants to continue the cross-gen, the Series S|X, PS5 will remain for that. And Switch 2, if you gotta go even lower in the TF range.

ABizzel11d 14h ago

Yes and No. All of the PC handhelds combined have struggled to sell 7 million units, which would be a flop for any “console”. So the market is extremely niche because of price and target market (the informed hardcore gamer / casuals aren’t picking these up).

These handheld PCs are $500 or more, and offer at best Xbox Series S performance levels, so it’s best for MS specifically to just partner with ASUS, instead of investing millions if not billions.

Sony can make their own with custom AMD hardware due to their partnership, and stronger global brand for hardware. But even then it brings the question, of being a lower resolution PS5, and what does that mean for PS6 cross-gen (likely another generation where the first 3 - 4 years are just upgraded last-gen games).

Kosic1d 11h ago

Imagine a Wii U style console, where the tablet doesn't rely on the console it's self, you download the game on the console under the TV and play in 4k glory, then you can remote play, get some unique game features if using both console and handheld in tandem. Then you can download the games in 720-1080p to play on the go, continue your progress, and continue on the TV when you get back.

Sony could get away with this due to exclusives, and that would be a reason for sales. Look at the portal.

I can picture seeing new hardware having some sort of GPU dock, where the handheld runs 1080p, and the dock has additional hardware to bring in 4k/60 specs.

I do think handheld gaming is going to be a strong future, imagine Nintendo release a new upgraded GPU dock for the Switch 3, every 2 years. More frames, sharper graphics on the same game for an extra £150 for a dock with a built in GPU chip. Console cycles doesn't have to be renewed, just the hardware can be improved by them reselling docks to us again and again with small/yearly upgrades like mobile phones.

GamerRN1d 3h ago

Did you just imply that Sony can make a better stronger handheld than Microsoft? You do realize we are talking about Microsoft, the tech giant, right? If Microsoft can't make one that's cost effective, Sony definitely can't...

Brand and market share means nothing when you are a trillion dollar company

ABizzel112h ago

@GamerRN

It has nothing to do with what company can do it, or what company can spend.

For anyone taking a basic business class there is a term called ROI, and Xbox home consoles are selling at an all time low, meaning their ROI on a handheld is a risk that doesn’t make sense, even if they can afford it. Businesses are there to make money and it doesn’t make sene for MS to invest in a handheld that’s a companion device when their current home consoles they’ve spent 20 years working on are at an all time-low, when they can invest with little risk with what ASUS already has to offer.

This is why Sony can build a better device, because they have less risk involved, meaning they can invest more in their own product, and they already have an exclusive partnership with AMD on creating features and hardware. So in this specific case, YES Sony can built a better handheld, due to custom hardware, customer tools, low level APIs, compared to an off the shelf product running Windows or a Window Xbox kernel =.

TheEroica1d 12h ago

I play steam deck primarily... Don't play consoles or mobile. The deck covers it all.

badz1491d 4h ago

@shadowT

The Switch is a handheld, so will the Switch 2. what are you on about?

Cacabunga23h ago

To run native games offline? Anytime

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 12h ago
CrashMania1d 23h ago

Funny to see the alt already damage controlling and having a meltdown with multiple accounts in the comments already.

Sad for MS if true, a dedicated handheld would go down a lot better than a rog ally 2 with an Xbox sticker on it I think.

crazyCoconuts1d 18h ago

It couldn't have succeeded for a number of reasons. Now they've retreated to the Windows front and trying to keep that relevant for gaming. How long before Windows Central realizes there won't be a real console successor to Series X either?

Lightning771d 14h ago

Except there is. That project is reportedly full speed ahead.

Outside_ofthe_Box1d 12h ago

@Lighting77

So was the handheld until today...

Lightning771d 12h ago

@outside obviously not since they sidelined it and they wanna see how the Asus does. Are you saying they're gonna cancel the next console?

crazyCoconuts1d 11h ago

@lightning - I'm admittedly trying to box you in here - Do you think the next Xbox console will have Steam on it?

Outside_ofthe_Box1d 11h ago (Edited 1d 11h ago )

@Lightning

Here we go with having to spell everything out.

If I told you yesterday that Xbox was going to sideline the handheld console what would your response have been? Probably something along the lines of "I doubt that since Phil has been talking about it for some time now"

My point is just because they are "full speed" ahead now does not mean that will not change in future. As we have seen with the handheld. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?

Lightning771d 7h ago (Edited 1d 7h ago )

Box me in? No you said the same thing you've always been saying for years now. Those are the rumors to have Steam integration.

What about it

If you told me they were gonna cancel it tomorrow it would nothing more than fanboy talking points. I only wait for credible sources not what someone else says.

Also this is the handheld not a full blown new console. The Asus is yet to release and they're waiting to see how that thing does. Critical thinking is my strong suit you should try it some time if you can. But Ok cool well you hang your hat on that I guess. Main New console is gonna get cancelled even though the handheld is a different marketing device than the main the console itself.

__y2jb1d 2h ago

I think there is a 75% chance there will not be another Xbox. There is zero reason to buy one now. No way it can possibly sell more than 10m units after Xbox went third party.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1d 2h ago
BLow1d 17h ago

That's what they do. Goalposts shift like the wind.

I'm really confused on why they are making a "first party" device and also have a Rog Ally with their sticker on it. Make this make sense. How is their own device going to be any different?

Your console doesn't sell and they expect a handheld to?

RaidenBlack1d 6h ago (Edited 1d 6h ago )

The Rog Ally one is gen agnostic ... as you deciphered, it was to be the updated Rog Ally but just with Xbox branding. PC handheld with some Xbox features.
The handheld Xbox is/was supposed to be sharing the same gen/ecosystem with the next-gen (10th gen) Xbox. Think Series S but handheld ... it'll run the Xbox OS or whatever the next Xbox will run.
...
As for anybody wondering/confused why MS is doing another Xbox console ... coz mainly its the 10th gen of home consoles next, which started wayy back in 1972 for the 1st gen. And MS wanna be part in it, in the 10th anniversary gen of consoles. If they gotta bow out, they can't do that at 9th i.e just before 10th. They wanna stick around till the 10th or the X-th gen and check what the fuss happens.

Outside_ofthe_Box1d 12h ago

Curious as to what excuses the spam was saying. Because prior to this news, the Xbox handheld was used as proof that Xbox is still committed to the hardware space. This handheld being scraped is not a good sign...

1d 12h ago
Outside_ofthe_Box1d 12h ago (Edited 1d 12h ago )

@Spam
You can replace scrapped with pushed back if you like. It's not a good sign either way.

1d 12h ago
1Victor1d 11h ago

asq3= obscured: “ What’s your source on the handheld being scrapped? “
Read the article from Microsoft own website and one of your favorite quotations site when it’s something bad about Sony.
Oh BTW good luck with your next SPAM account.

InUrFoxHole1d 4h ago

Scraped or postponed 🤔

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1d 4h ago
Show all comments (77)
150°

Capcom Has Removed GFWL From Lost Planet 1/2 & Other Titles On Steam Alongside Online Features

Capcom has removed GFWL from PC versions of Lost Planet 1 and 2 as well as other titles on Steam alongside support for online features.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
shadowhaxor2d ago

I suppose better late than never. But why?

coldfire9841d 18h ago

so they continue to be playable.