220°

It's Time For Microsoft To Give Gamers a Break

Teamxbox - One thing came to mind when I saw the new dashboard last week - "Is it time Microsoft gave gamers a break?". Xbox Live is a fantastic service, and as a games journalist and "hardcore" gamer I use it on a daily basis but as the days fall off the calendar I wonder if Microsoft's business model for their online service is stuck in the past. Are the guys in Redmond looking back, rather than forward?

Read Full Story >>
editorials.teamxbox.com
Boody-Bandit4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

Is it open mic night here on N4G?
Oh you're being serious.
SMH

MS is not in the business of giving breaks, they never have been. They are about making money and only making money. They want paid for "everything". That is why they charge for their online services, everything has to pass certification (fees for most) and nearly everything on their console is proprietary (license fees). They want paid.

Edit: Disagree away but tell me why or how you think I'm wrong. I would be very interested to hear your, or anyone's, opinion on this.

coolbeans4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

Capitalism is essentially only about making money.

Edit: Disagree? Feel free to explain what else capitalism is about while you're at it.

Belasco4931d ago

Yes, it is only about making money. What is your point?

kaveti66164931d ago

On two occasions I've been mistaken as an uber pro-capitalist Ayn Rand fanatic because of my avatar.

Sometimes, a lot of the time, capitalism sucks, but we're conditioned as children to think that capitalism is the best possible system there is. Creative thought it discouraged. It's true that Communism is fundamentally against human nature. But Communism the more noble system.

Microsoft does want to make money, any way it can. They won't buy more studios to make exclusive games because they happen to make more money from third party partnerships.

coolbeans4931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

@Belasco

BrutallyHonest's original post ended with "They are about making money and only money.", then I retorted by telling him that's what capitalism is all about.

My point (although I thought it was blatantly obvious) is only to state that ALL big businesses that operate within the realm of capitalism are all about making money, not just Microsoft.

@kaveti6616

The discussion about Communism vs. Capitalism is really for a different discussion. I would like to point out MS has purchased Twisted Pixel and announced plans for...4 (or is it 5?) new in-house studios in 2011 alone.

darthv724931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

sometimes means having to give away your product to get people to notice. PSN is slowly going the same route as Live. Many would like to not believe that but Sony is in the business of making $$$ as well.

sony could just as easily make some exclusive members only online modes for multiplayer. It really makes sense if they did as it would probably entice more to sign up to get all the benefits of the service.

You can only stand outside looking in for so long before you bite the bullet and join.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4931d ago
Pikajew4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

XBL is a way better service than PSN. People pay for XBL so they get better stuff and more features. If everyone had to pay for PSN it can be much better with lots of different features.

I would rather pay for a great service.

And its not that expensive to get XBL

Hufandpuf4932d ago

I don't mind paying for XBL, but I don't want to be paying for "free" services that I don't want. Instead of a GOLD membership I wonder why they don't just give us basic online functions for a lower price.

Ryo-Hazuki4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

party chat is the only thing you're paying $10 a month for. Its funny cause yeah the ps3 has a ram issue when it come to that but as you can see with the VITA (8-player party chat) and all the online features all for free and when the ps4 comes with party chat all for free. The whole time you've been getting ripped off.

My thing is why do you have to pay a monthly fee just to play online games? The servers are 99.9 percent p2p depending on the developers. Everything is the same exact thing when gaming online for ps3. But why do you have to pay the middle man? Its like you have to pay steam to play online on your PC...like WTF

Optical_Matrix4932d ago

You say people are getting better stuff and more features, but half the stuff XBL is adding as a result of this Fall Update, I've been using on PSN for over year for absolutely no fee's. BBC iPlayer, LoveFilm, 4oD. I could go on. Only service XBL has over PSN in my opinion is Sky Player which is a godsend for me as it gives me so much entertainment on demand for free. THAT, I can tip my hat off to MS for.

darthv724931d ago

The live service was a paid service from the get go. It has evolved into more than the simple online multiplayer service it began as. Yes it has added more features that are generally free to PC users but that is where the convenience comes in.

On the PC you are using the end companies resources. Like facebook for example. You are using their servers and interface. Same with netflix and last.fm and espn. What you are using when they are on the 360 are specifically keyed to the 360 design. You are using MS software and servers to interface with the other servers on the web.

It may surprise some but Sony had the idea of doing the same thing as live. What stopped them was their PSN network wasnt as structured as Live. They had no choice but to make it free at first. You cant compare charging $50 a year for PSN at that time with the way it was laid out to that of Live.

Live has continued to get newer features for the gold members that is all inclusive in their membership. Sony is doing the same thing with PSN but one small catch. New features are only for the PLUS members now. That tells me that Sony is comfortable in their network structure to charge a membership fee that will do more than the discount service it started off as.

PLUS (IMO) was like a costco for their store. Discounts and bargains and free cheese at the end of the isle and you get that for being a member. Non members pay full price for content and no free offers or betas. So yeah, people who pay to be a member of something want that feeling of getting their moneys worth otherwise why be a member.

Sony has been changing the PLUS side more so than the free users. The only thing free users of PSN can really proclaim is they can game for free online. At least.......for now until sony changes things again and makes exclusive online gaming (dedicated servers, large capacity multiplayer games) a members only perk.

They may never do away with the "free" online but they sure can make restrictions to when and how. By then they are hoping there will be more PLUS members. For them, they wont know the difference because they will be paid members to the PLUS service.

MS may reconsider and have a free online multiplayer but for that to happen, live would need to hit bottom like the AOL effect. I dont see that happening anytime soon.

turnerdc4931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

@ Ryo-Hazuki

Check your math, 60 divided by 12 does not equal 10. It's 5 dollars a month and Microsoft offers several promotions whether it be directly from them or buying a renewal card from a third party. The past 3 years I've only paid $30 to $38 a year for Xbox Live. As far as why do I pay for it? I think it's an excellent service. I buy all my multiplatform games for Xbox because not only does it have a larger user base but the features are more seamlessly and better implemented compared to PSN.

kaveti66164931d ago

There are a lot of features XBL has that I can do without.

I don't use 90 percent of the features offered to me on XBL. I usually just use XBL to play online.

But I do love party chat and cross game chat a lot. It's disappointing that Sony can't bring that to their service.

Christopher4931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

***It may surprise some but Sony had the idea of doing the same thing as live. ***

When making such statements, it usually helps to link to proof of said statement. Can you provide one?

If this is true, is does offer up a different perspective than the one we've been told the last six years.

darthv724931d ago

Unfortunately you cant link common sense.

If you really think about it, it only makes sense that the reason they went free was because the service wasnt worth the risk of charging in view of the competition.

I guess i should have stated that it was "rumored" they had a paid service laid out when creating PSN.

But yes if people were to understand that then it changes perspective slightly. Maybe not so much now because PLUS is in some ways a pay to play and will continue to get better.

Back to the original statement from mr Sony himself. he said online play would be free but never expressed if there would be certain restrictions applied down the road.

Im betting they are waiting until they get a certain percentage of paid members before making the online changes to the service.

I have received many disagrees in the past when bringing that up but you just cant deny that there is more $$$ to be made from online memberships to a service that people get addicted to than just continuing to give it away.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4931d ago
dark-hollow4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

They should let things that actually free everywhere, free on their service.
I mean why youtube, facebook etc is gold only???

And hopefully, online gaming.
I mean why people are defending that they want to pay than have it for free!!?
Xbox live service is top notch and everything but if they made it free it will actaully benifit them in the long run as some people are being turned off from buying an xbox because of the xbl fees.

Would people on both sides stop sucking those companies d#cks and start worrying about what a gamers need and not their beloved company

coolbeans4932d ago

To address what you edited in (since I can't edit mine): Everything else you added is allowed in the realm of the capitalist system and is being 'abused' by almost every single other gaming publisher out there. The likes of Sony, EA, Activision, etc. aren't shy in inventing new streams of revenue.

"...charge for their online services..."

It has been deemed worth the price by millions of consumers, and has features you can't find on other console's online services.

lelo2play4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

"MS is not in the business of giving breaks, they never have been. They are about making money and only making money"

I guess Nintendo, Sony and all other companies are in the business for Love... and not to make money !!! How the hell do they pay the bills?

Jazz41084931d ago

I went to the movies over the wekeend and paid 14.00 t get in and befre my movie there were ads fo coke, new girl, cancer center and another coke add plus all the coming soon attractions. Ads are everywhere and it des not matter if its paid tv or paid xbox live they are going to advertise to help there bottom line.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4931d ago
Micro_Sony4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

If you can not afford $3 a month then you picked up the wrong hobby.

Also if you are crying about Live fees then you always have the option to buy a PS3 which has free PSN and according to N4G users has the same or better experiance than Live.

People have the choice on what to spend their hard earned money on and the fact that they choose to spend it on Live shows that 90% of gamers do not care about paying $3 a month becuase they experiance it provides justifies it.

Edit @ Rezzah: Thats my point - why cry about paying for something when you have the option to choose. MS is not holding a gun to his head and forcing him to pay for LIVE.

By now millions of people should know that PSN is free but they still continue to pay for Live....why is that?

Edit 2 @ Jobesy: Stop being ignorant becuase you what I mean. When you plan on buying something you either have the cash upfront or you budget for it.

Edit 3 $ Rezzah: My bad I meant to say 90% of Xbox gamers - the other 10% are people like the author of this article who owns a 360 but finds it hard to pay for Live.

rezzah4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

Why spend money for what you already have access to?

To play games? Other systems offer the same for free.

Edit:

Where did you get 90% percent of gamers from?

OC_MurphysLaw4932d ago

Just for the record...its not the same service for free. It's similar services but not the same. You don't have access to cross game chat or Party chat on other services do you? Not sure maybe on Steam but I know for sure PSN doesn't have it. And yes, that is a service I find quite valuable when organizing a game with friends that are all playing something different at the moment we try to play say BF3. Invite all to party chat, get them all organized into the same server for BF3 so we are on the same team/side...if not back out, and find a different server. That is FAR easier to do on XBL then on PSN.

rezzah4932d ago

^

So essentially cross-game and a better party chat (PS3 has this but not to that level) is what you are paying $60 for.

OC_MurphysLaw4932d ago

@rezzah, that is part of it. I also like the fact that ALL XBLA titles come with a free trial. I can't tell you have valuable that is for someone like myself that enjoys the downloadable title from time to time. I check out all the XBLA games and then can make an informed purchase.

Cloud storage was another nice addition, and I know that is offered on other services but its not free on those other services either.

SilentNegotiator4931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

First off, it's absolutely not "$3 a month". Besides being completely wrong in the breakdown, Microsoft does NOT offer it that way. It gets more expensive as you pay more frequently, or else it's $60 a year (cheapest routes, sans promo deals, sales, etc). You pay an entire game's worth of money PER YEAR to play online and get a bunch of features you may not want.

Not all of us have money to burn. Mortgages, car payments/insurance, university/college, families.....Not having much money doesn't mean you've "picked the wrong 'hobby'". Many of us play games as entertainment, not a hobby, btw.

I want to play online.
I don't want to use Youtube or Bing on my console. I don't want to have chat parties because my friends don't play games anywhere near as often as myself. I don't need MS to overhaul the menu every year or two (in fact, I'm still quite fond of the original). I don't need cross-invites because if my friends aren't playing the same game, then guess what? They don't want to go co-op.

"Thats my point - why cry about paying for something when you have the option to choose"
-
The option to choose to not have half of my game in a generation that is quickly valuing and focusing on multiplayer above single player?
Thanks, Microsoft! /s

@Dlacy13g
And many of us don't need/want those extra features. But we have to pay for them anyway to play online, which is free everywhere else. See the dilemma?

gamingdroid4931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

@SilentNegotiator

Sounds like an issue as an "uninformed consumer" of sorts or just wanting stuff for free. I mean, MS is offering you what it has always offered with more features now.

Don't like it? Don't buy it!

If you bought it and felt you only get half the game, perhaps you should have looked across the pond prior to buying the Xbox 360.

It's like going into Coach handbag store, buy it, and then complain it is expensive. You didn't realize that in the store?

It's basically stupid to cry about it, because MS is charging you a fee because they can. They can because they offer something you want more than other free options out there!

The good news, you can always continue to use your free option which you undoubtedly is using.

***Not all of us have money to burn. Mortgages, car payments/insurance, university/college, families.....Not having much money doesn't mean you've "picked the wrong 'hobby'". Many of us play games as entertainment, not a hobby, btw. ***

If you can't afford games or other forms of entertainment that is your issue.

I would love to get lobster and fancy steak for dinner everyday. Maybe that should be free too since I can't afford it?

***And many of us don't need/want those extra features. But we have to pay for them anyway to play online, which is free everywhere else. See the dilemma?***

Yeah, we totally see the dilemma. It's called "NOT BUYING" and "REFUSING AN OFFER"!!!

OC_MurphysLaw4931d ago

@SilentNegotiator... I don't "see the dilema" as you put it. I was answering a question put forward by Rezzah. I was giving back "MY" reasons as to why I and most likely others feel paying for XBL Gold is worth it, just giving a few examples.

You clearly have your own issues and needs/wants for online. Your laundry list of I don't wants/don't needs/no friends complaints clearly shows that XBL Gold and most likely the Xbox 360 isn't a good fit for you. And that is totally ok. It is more than OK to like what another system has to offer and prefer that.. spend your money there. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to spend money on XBL. You always have choices. I suspect you already made that choice a while a go and are using a PS3. I am happy for you if that is the case because I think that would more fit what you need out of your console. If you aren't, please go trade in your 360 and get a PS3, as again it sounds like that would be a better fit for you.

For anyone who says "not all of us have money to burn" as part of their argument I have an option for you. Don't. If you are so tight on money that buying something for $40-$60 a year (you can still get Amazon deals for 12 months of XBL Gold for $39.99 btw) is going to put you in peril or cause you to skip meals... for the love of God don't. Trade in your gaming console and focus on what matters, your home and family. Truly if money is that tight you shouldn't be buying games, or a gaming console... I suspect though, most using that argument are not actually that tight on money they just try to throw that excuse out there. Again...if paying for XBL Gold angers you so much and online is important to you then go get a PS3 or just game on your PC.

Stop bitching about it and do something about it if you are truly that bothered.

And if you are just here to troll the article... well you know what my advice to you would be too.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4931d ago
Jobesy4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

i didn't realize MS had an easy payment plan. Oh wait, they don't! You can take nearly anything and break it down and make it seem affordable. Hell, for .50 per day I can feed a starving child in Africa.

Btw, it's $5/month.

Game13a13y4932d ago

Exactly, I bought my BMW for 35K, so I pay $6000 a year, which makes it $500 a month, which makes it $16.67 a day, and only 69 cents per hour! Why everyone not driving in a BMW is beyond me!

Biggest4932d ago

For $1.04 a minute you can afford a $10,000/mo mortgage. We should all live in mansions while we play on Xbox Live. It's so cheap!

dark-hollow4932d ago

What a bad analogy!!

Its 5 per month because you can pay for each month and not the whole year 60$

While am sure bmw wont let me pay per day for their cars!

B1663r4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

Micro_Sony,

It is also a case of being penny wise pound foolish. With the xbox I was able to completely end my reliance on the cable company for video services. Now the only thing I buy from the cable company is internet, and I get 100% of my video from the xbox, via Zune, Netflix, and Hulu.(All told about $26 a month vs the lowest tier of cable that included Comedy @ ~$45) And it still costs less than the most basic tier of cable video that would get me the shows I want to watch.

@below,

Enlighen me? Between Zune, Netflix, and Hulu, what exactly am I missing? I guess I don't get Fox Noise channel... But with my politics, that is a bit of a feature imo...

Biggest4932d ago

That sounds like an awesome deal, B1663r! All you have to do is not care about every other channel and movie in the world that Hulu/Netflix doesn't cover!

FragMnTagM4932d ago (Edited 4932d ago )

This^

I did the exact same thing. With all the video and music services (and more to come), I completely cut cable out of the picture. Instead of paying well over a hundred dollars cable, phone, and internet, I now pay for just internet (29.99 a month).

I use my Magic Jack for phone calls at home, and my cell phone on the road.

60 bucks a year versus over a hundred a month is a great deal to me, don't see why everyone whines about it so much.

For cable, phone, and internet, it is roughly 150 bucks a month. 150-29.99 = 120.01 X 12 = 1440.12.

So for the entire year of cable and phone I would pay almost fifteen hundred dollars, but with XBOX Live and my Magic Jack, I can save over 1300 dollars a year.

Cry all you guys want, but it helps me out a lot and that is more money that I can use to spend time with my wife and kids.

Christopher4931d ago

You could do the exact same thing on the PS3, but not pay $50 a year for it. PSN Video Unlimited, Hulu, Netflix, VUDU, and a few other options are available without any additional cost from Sony/PSN.

So, I'm not sure how this is in support of Microsoft keeping the fee.

FragMnTagM4931d ago

@cgoodno, I don't really like Hulu, never used vudu and that leaves only Netflix.

I have a PS3 and it gets used once in a while when I feel like playing a single player game, or watching a blu ray movie, or watching a 3D movie, but other than that, my XBOX gets used daily.

For me, there is a lot more entertainment on the XBOX, than on the PS3. It is also much easier now to access all that content as well.

I say a few words from in the kitchen while getting myself a beer, and by the time I come back, every single app on the 360 that is relevant to what I just searched for comes up.

It is a great service and well worth paying for. The ripoff that is cable will never ever be paid for again in this household.

@Biggest, really?

There is a way more content than just Hulu and Netflix. I think you are thinking about the PS3.

Christopher4931d ago (Edited 4931d ago )

@FragMnTagM:

Oh, I'm far from criticizing or attempting to debunk the value of XBL Gold's cost. I know if you play online or if you prefer their service, it's more than well worth it. My comment was only aimed at B1663r's comment of how he's lowered his costs by getting rid of cable and using the video/music services provided on his 360.

If you feel the XBL Gold is worth the cost, by all means, pay it and be happy. I see it like how I hate it when people question me on getting certain CEs. It's my money, I like it, I'll get it. End of discussion and no need to be criticized for it.

gamingdroid4931d ago

I could buy a PC for less than a Mac, but people still buy a Mac.

Obviously it's not exactly the same to the consumer since they are willing to pay for it. Might be the same for you though....

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4931d ago
A-Glorious-Dawn4932d ago

Never have paid for live and never will.

My best experiences with the xbox are when 8 are linked together to play halo LAN with friends in the same room. Great times.

As for online gaming I go for my pc and ps3. It's not that I can't afford to pay a subscription, its because I can't be bothered when you can get essentially the same experiences for free.

TyrannoTaurus4932d ago

I pay over $100 a month for cable... $100 A MONTH. I still get commercials. LOTS of them. Often times they are totally irrelevant to me. Boner pills, anxiety medications, tampons, the list goes on forever. I pay $60 A YEAR for Xbox Live. Most of the ads are relevant to me and, IMO, not intrusive. Nobody makes you click on the ads. Hell, you can set up your Xbox to boot right into a video game if you want to. Not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.

OC_MurphysLaw4932d ago

I am so tired of all the bitching about the ads on the new blades. Frankly the way they have implemented the ads on the new dash is far superior to the previous dash its not even funny. I get ads on pretty much every service out there, free or not free so I honestly am not too chuffed about this.

It's time to move on folks. Focus on important things like.... games.

Show all comments (57)
210°

Activision Forces Adverts into Call of Duty Black Ops 6 and Warzone Loadouts

With the launch of Call of Duty Season 4, Activision quietly put adverts inside loadouts for Black Ops 6 and Warzone, sparking a backlash in the process.

13d ago
13d ago
lukasmain13d ago

Putting Ads in a pay-to-play Premium title? Well done Microsoft. Well done /s This is really scummy.

jjb198112d ago

This game will never change because these sweatlords love buying up all the skins and bundles that become obsolete the following year. They're the ones perpetuating Activision's greed.

VenomUK12d ago

If Microsoft introduces adverts into its other games I hope it can do them without disrupting the immersion of the game world. So for example in the new Fable game it would look out of place if there was a billboard advertising Cadillacs.

A far better way to do it would be to have a wizard conjure a 'dream cloud' in front of your character and then in the cloud you can see the Cadillac car and see the text with price and availability and hear a booming sales voice promoting the car. That would work so well as it wouldn't be a billboard and completely, 100%, fit in with your character's adventuring in Albion. Doesn't that sound so much better?!

crazyCoconuts12d ago

@venom, or how about our of 100 farts in Albion, 1 of them has a Cadillac pop out

VenomUK11d ago

@crazyCoconuts That’s undeniably off-beat - but it could really work!

12d ago
Show all comments (19)
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
15d ago
15d ago
15d ago
shadowT15d ago

Is there really a market for handhelds next to mobile?

Vits14d 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).

RaidenBlack14d ago (Edited 14d 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.

ABizzel114d 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).

Kosic14d 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.

GamerRN14d 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

ABizzel113d 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 =.

TheEroica14d ago

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

badz14914d ago

@shadowT

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

Cacabunga14d ago

To run native games offline? Anytime

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 13d ago
CrashMania15d 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.

crazyCoconuts14d 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?

Lightning7714d ago

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

Outside_ofthe_Box14d ago

@Lighting77

So was the handheld until today...

Lightning7714d 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?

crazyCoconuts14d 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_Box14d ago (Edited 14d 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?

Lightning7714d ago (Edited 14d 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.

__y2jb14d 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 14d ago
BLow14d 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?

RaidenBlack14d ago (Edited 14d 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_Box14d 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...

14d ago
Outside_ofthe_Box14d ago (Edited 14d ago )

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

14d ago
1Victor14d 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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 14d ago
Show all comments (77)
200°

FTC drops case against Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard deal

The FTC has officially dropped its case against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

Read Full Story >>
theverge.com
slate9122d ago

The sweet smell of tax dollars burning

Killa7821d ago

From the unemployment this deal caused, no doubt.

Obscure_Observer21d ago

"The sweet smell of tax dollars burning"

They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. And yet, still, they´d decided to go ahead and double down on their bs to bleed the taxpayer even more.

dveio21d ago

The IRS demands 29bn USD in not paid taxes from Microsoft.

If we're talking bleeding.

1Victor21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

@slate: “ The sweet smell of tax dollars burning “

The smell of political donations endorsements under the table.
There I fixed it it for you
We all knew Microsoft plan of “10 years of all systems publishing “ and some of its supporters happy that after all the games would be “exclusive to Xbox “ now that things have changed and Microsoft got humbled by the lost of money from CoD going down from OVER A BILLI🤑N to
MILLI😩NS the sales failing of games that would released on PlayStation and be forced by INVESTORS asking for their M🤑NEY to grow faster than the next 10 years it is obvious that it would be a waste of money to continue this litigation.
Edit:@obscured: “ They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start “

Same as your grievance stages.
Have you passed the bargaining stage yet ? Or are you still on the anger stage 🤣

slate9121d ago

I knew my singe bipartisan sentence would bring out the crazies. Thanks for the wall

Astrokis21d ago

Not sure if I’m disturbed or entertained but either way I hope you are alright

OtterX22d ago

I think they're convinced now that MS won't (and can't) withhold releases from conpeting platforms. MS on the street corner now like, "Who wants a taste?!"

PhillyDonJawn21d ago

I wont be too sure of that. Gotta wait and see till after these deals expire

OtterX21d ago

That's how it always starts, "I'll just work this street corner for a short while until I get caught up on my bills..."

Tacoboto21d ago

Oh yeah, they're totally gonna make Xbox exclusives again, with the hardware they're totally committed to selling and making available lol

raWfodog21d ago

As far as I'm aware, the only 'deal' that was discussed was for Call of Duty. Xbox had no obligation to make any of their other games multiplatform. They did that of their own accord.

OtterX21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

**btw, I'm talking about street food vendors, just in case there's any confusion!

https://external-content.du...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 21d ago
Lightning7721d ago (Edited 21d ago )

I've seen videos and talk a online speculating MS long game. Some think that MS multiplat move is use to appease the FTC so they can buy more and is somehow a move that could get Sony to open up their platform. In other words them going third party and letting their games go everywhere. MS possible scheme and ulterior motives, speculated by Jeff Grubb is that putting Xbox store on PS via regulation Which would hurt PS buissness very badly because that 30% cut would be even less or not a cut at all. MS buys more because they're "playing nice" by opening up its platform to Epic store and steam which would force Apple and Sony to open up their ecosystem to other stores like MS.

If that's the case that'll mean as I said before, PS fans buying Cod on PS via MS store would give 100% maybe even 90% of the money being pocketed by MS while Sony's store front wanes when it comes to third party because guess what? MS is buying more third party and preying off the extreme ignorance of the FTC. Manipulation of the FTC and MS overtaking the PS store and customers

My thing is this. I know it's a opinion and speculation but why does Sony have to open up its store or force them to go multiplat? If they still believe in selling their freakin console then let them do it. If they want to provide the best games and the best content for its fans then let them do it!? Why because the competition is trash at selling games and consoles for 14 years now Sony has to change? MS using the ignorance of the FTC to overtake gaming as we know it?

Again it's just talk and opinion but man this seems very, very possible imo.

dveio21d ago

Well, at the time, I actually did think the FTC and CMA did a poor job in court. But also the judge.

Having said that - it is what it is.

If 75bn mergers in any industry ain't a threshold to deny them, then I don't know what is.

As far as your thoughts about other 3rd parties getting taken over in the future go:

I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher.

But smaller studios ... maybe.

However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft.

That isn't to say an announcement of such couldn't drop on Monday already. Because we today know that Microsoft had approached a plethora of other studios in 2018 to 2021, such as IOI, CD Project, etc.

We'll see. And we can't do anything about it. It's up to trade commissions and then probably courts to decide.

Lightning7721d ago (Edited 21d ago )

"I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher."

That's the thing MS is ticking all the boxes by not have anything be exclusive so the CMA/FTC see that they're doing "fair practice" in games and content distribution. Which technically greenlits more aquisions or it makes it easier for acquisitions because MS is a mega publisher now.

"However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft."

Hopefully not but them going multiplat could entice Studios to join MS because nothing is not longer exclusive which means more money for them, studio and teams.

We can't do nothing about it but Sony can. They can block xbox games on their console (lose that 30% cut) but Sony won't do that because that's money that will be lost and Sony runs a buissness. That's the only way to hurt or slow down Xbox.

I'm probably over thinking it as I do these things but it's something we shouldn't just ignore and be weary of MS motives here. I'm keeping an eye on them.

Rancegamerx21d ago

The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up. Microsoft’s multiplatform approach is 100% due to past failures and its laughable position in the gaming industry. Their best attempt was a fluke and a lie, brought on by Sony’s missteps and a poorly made machine that broke down too often.

Sony would never allow themselves to be "forced" to do anything; they control their platform and storefront perfectly fine without the need or desire to add an unnecessary Microsoft storefront. Even if, by some flaw on Sony’s part, Microsoft were able to introduce its store on PlayStation, Sony would adapt rather than collapse. Digital storefront competition already exists (Steam, Epic Games Store, Xbox Store), and PlayStation’s business won’t suddenly "wane."

Also, regulators like the FTC don’t operate on ignorance—they actively assess market behavior to prevent monopolies. Microsoft isn’t secretly overtaking gaming with some ultimate scheme. The industry might be changing or shifting (for the worse, in my opinion), but Sony will continue evolving based on market trends, not because of alleged schemes.

Gaming isn’t about one company "playing nice" or another being "forced" to change—it’s about making money with games, something Microsoft has yet to achieve in 25+ years.

Lightning7721d ago

"The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up."

That's why I said it was all speculation that's what Jeff Grubb opinion. I made that clear several times. You know what's funny? When Jim was in court ppl got mad at the FTC for protecting Jim Ryan instead of the consumer. Maybe he was right to worry about his business. Now look Releasing Xbox games on PS keeps MS studio an a float. Now Xbox games are all over PS now. Maybe Jim was onto something.

MS is still competing with Sony just in a very different way. The FTC back down mainly means they can buy more and MS next steps can proceed. We'll have to see what happens in the future but I wouldn't be so sure on your stance.

InUrFoxHole21d ago

@Lightning77
MS putting games everywhere is the most consumer friendly thing I've seen a game company do.

dveio21d ago

@InUrFox

What does "putting everywhere" actually mean?

This book has so many pages.

• Xbox was dying in revenue
• Regulators put a 10 year deal on CoD
• Microsoft had to give away the streaming
• Spencer himself only offered 3 yrs initially

And most importantly

• Again, Xbox was dying in revenue

Xbox have the benefit of their actual financial situation giving regulators and courts the impression they release games everywhere, what they actually do.

But for reasons they can't be proven guilty of anything in court.

I'm not judging, it's just what it is.

IF the Series generation would have developed differently and was much more successful, I don't hesitate any second to believe in what Spencer had originally planned to do:

• Make everything Xbox exclusive
• We today know that Spencer had also approached Sega, From Software, CD Project, Nintendo, and even Valve was on their list of buyouts.

MS are playing a card here everyone knows why they are doing it.

Putting Doom "everywhere", which even was it already before it got bought, ain't a MS thing.

It would had hurt them in many ways if they'd put it exclusively to Xbox.

But, no matter what - it is what it is.

Xbox bought themselves back into the game. And I think many people just don't have very fond feelings towards this behaviour, wether on corporate nor private levels.

Let's see how they'll run with it.

In 2030, but most importantly after regulations will have expired we will learn better.

Reaper22_21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

Seemed like a lost cause anyway. Microsoft gambled and it paid off big time. That's what you call a big boss move. Sony played a huge part in the success of that acquisition.

wesnytsfs21d ago

Bout time. Pointless from the start.

Show all comments (26)