Support NeoGAF

[IntentionalPun]

Because they're hypocrites and PR all their initiatives to only their benefit.

Pretty sure you are smart enough to know Microsoft can't just give games away in the Playstation store w/o paying Sony, but maybe I was wrong about you.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Pretty sure you are smart enough to know Microsoft can't just give games away in the Playstation store w/o paying Sony, but maybe I was wrong about you.

Oh really? SKUs cost money?

Well would'ya look at that. That's why shaming third parties is a slimy tactic. Even through their shill writers.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Oh really? SKUs cost money?

Well would'ya look at that. That's why shaming third parties is a slimy tactic. Even through their shill writers.

I mean yeah, obviously I agree with you there. See my previous post making fun of Jez lol

 

[uncreativename]

Years ago, GOG gave away Steam keys for Witcher 2 to people who'd bought it on GOG, but that's very rare. Since then afaik Valve have put a limit on how many keys developers can just give away for free.

Despite what idiots like this games journalist would have you believe

 

[ReasonBeing]

Pretty easy question to answer, why would they eliminate the potential opportunity to sell a game to someone twice?

 

[sainraja]

They might simply be skipping play anywhere right now because the game is new, and they want to sell it. Chances are, they will, like they did for Village, add it to GP and Play Anywhere, when it makes sense for them to do so (i.e. when sales reach whatever milestone they have set).

 

[IntentionalPun]

Years ago, GOG gave away Steam keys for Witcher 2 to people who'd bought it on GOG, but that's very rare. Since then afaik Valve have put a limit on how many keys developers can just give away for free.

Yeah Valve changed the rules (and their code) to make it clear the intent was for stuff like giveaways and giving critics copies of games.

I believe the systems for MS/Sony use for the same purposes don't use digital codes at all.

 

[sainraja]

They're making an Xbox version (XSeries) where they lose 30%... Of course, it's not that they're not interested in publishing on the platform..... What they're not interested in is the potential loss of PC sales, especially since it's a single-player game with great appeal on Steam.

Add to that the fact that the game on the Xbox PC Store is another version that will require optimization and maintenance since day one. Is more easy and $ be Playanywhere months or a year post-launch (that is what in Campcom are doing) .

In other words, it's as simple as this: sometimes the publisher isn't willing to pass up the opportunity to earn a double purchase day one.

Because If there's one thing that's beyond dispute, it's that the number of PlayAnywhere games is growing significantly, more than ever. This includes AAA games (the latest to be announced is 007), but the differentiation between Xbox console and Xbox PC still holds publishers back.

Perhaps when there's only one Xbox version on the platform, there will be more reasons for PlayAnywhere support for those publishers to grow, as they'll then be avoiding the trade-offs they face today.

If there is no Xbox console, and Xbox is simply a PC (with different configs or what have you), the need for a label such as "Play Anywhere" will not be needed lol. Unless you think MS is going to foot the bill for people to have a playable version of PlayStation if they buy said version of Xbox?

Edit:
I suppose the label might still help communicate that the game will work on any Xbox platform, but if they are removing that type of distinction by focusing on a single Xbox platform, then it does become unnecessary.

 

[Three]

Pretty sure you are smart enough to know Microsoft can't just give games away in the Playstation store w/o paying Sony, but maybe I was wrong about you.

What about if you buy on PlayStation store you get access on windows store/xbox, you buy on steam you get access on windows store/xbox. They get paid and windows does its "initiative". Not going to happen though because MS aren't doing this for anybody's benefit but their own. Their intention is to maintain xbox ecosystem sales as people are migrating.

Yeah Valve changed the rules (and their code) to make it clear the intent was for stuff like giveaways and giving critics copies of games.

I believe the systems for MS/Sony use for the same purposes don't use digital codes at all.

Even valve themselves gave away a steam copy of Portal I believe when you bought the PS3 version.

 

[Humdinger]

The new movement is trying to convince people that it's anti-consumer to have walled gardens as a video game store (i.e. PSN or Nintendo Store). And that anybody should be able to sell their wares on anybody's store. Leading to GamePass being available on PSN and for Nintendo Switch 2.

But level 1, is that "They" need to destroy the idea of wall-gardens within the console business space.

You're probably giving Xbox execs too much credit for long-term, strategic thinking. I've made this mistake myself.

It's better to think of Xbox as flailing around, trying to grab at something that works (apart from 3rd-party publishing, which is working just fine). I don't think there is much long-term strategery going on there.

 

[uncreativename]

What about if you buy on PlayStation store you get access on windows store/xbox, you buy on steam you get access on windows store/xbox. They get paid and windows does its "initiative". Not going to happen though because MS aren't doing this for anybody's benefit but their own. Their intention is to maintain xbox ecosystem sales as people are migrating.

It costs money to run servers for the Xbox app or whatever it's called, so if they're not making any profit on games sold then their model doesn't really make any economic sense unless if they price their console really high. You can say sure but the user doesn't need to worry about that, but what happens to all the Xbox games people did spend money on when it goes the way of Games For Windows Live and Zune?

 

[Three]

You're probably giving Xbox execs too much credit for long-term, strategic thinking. I've made this mistake myself.

It's better to think of Xbox as flailing around, trying to grab at something that works (apart from 3rd-party publishing, which is working just fine). I don't think there is much long-term strategery going on there.

That strategy would be the third party part they're clinging on to now. Think of how they tried with Epic to topple Apples walled garden. For third parties like themselves. You underestimate MS' drive to be strategic for their own goals but mostly fail because the majority of people dont care about their products while they blame everybody else but themselves. Once their platform failed they attacked the idea of platforms.

 

[Three]

It costs money to run servers for the Xbox app or whatever it's called, so if they're not making any profit on games sold then their model doesn't really make any economic sense unless if they price their console really high. You can say sure but the user doesn't need to worry about that, but what happens to all the Xbox games people did spend money on when it goes the way of Games For Windows Live and Zune?

It does but Valve has done this already decades ago:

Portal 2 PS3 Has Cross-Platform Multiplayer, Free PC Version

Valve Software revealed its Steam-powered PlayStation 3 version of Portal 2 will support PC/Mac-to-PS3 multiplayer, cloud-based storage of PS3 save games and cross-platform chat.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Despite this app server cost they did it as a publisher of games back then. Clearly they are making money on the game sale and eating some cost.

My only point was that this PA initiative is self serving for MS to try and keep migrating xbox users in their xbox ecosystem hence why they don't do this idea of giving it free on their store when bought from steam or PS. ie what DeepEnigma said in reply to that idea:

"Because they're hypocrites and PR all their initiatives to only their benefit."

No publishers outside themselves care about the idea of only making money on one game sale yet having the technical debt of two to maintain a struggling store. No other publisher is going to blindly serve MS' goals of clinging on without incentive.

 

[Det]

Nobody cares about Play Anyware, and even Xbox "fans" don't care about that feature.

The only reason an "Xbox fan" speaks well of Play Anyware is to "win the war against PlayStation fans in online discussions."

Does anyone here still talk about improved Xbox backward compatibility now that Microsoft has abandoned the program?
Xbox fans don't care about backward compatibility; they only talked about it to "win" arguments online. It's the same thing with Play Anyware.

That's the problem, it's an upside-down world... They are trained cult followers who adore everything that "master" Phil Spencer tells them to adore and don't understand why other people have their own opinions and aren't puppets of Xbox marketing.

 

[Grenseal]

You don't even need an Xbox to play Halo anymore. What's the point?

 

[Arsic]

Because there isn't money to be made on a dead platform.

 

[Beechos]

There's really no financial motivation for 3rd parties to do this. The cant enforce it since they are not the dominant platform that has more negotiating power.

 

[ReasonBeing]

The only way MS is going to convince publishers to go this route is by drastically reducing their cut off of game sales. If there is no incentive, no publisher is going to give away two copies of a game for the price of one.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Keep in mind - whatever current xbox is doing, its competitors will follow.

Its under Phil Spencer. All the decisions taken will define industry.

Why 3rd party will do it?

Cause it will be the norm and expected. Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox etc are industry leaders.

 

[Darsxx82]

If there is no Xbox console, and Xbox is simply a PC (with different configs or what have you), the need for a label such as "Play Anywhere" will not be needed lol. Unless you think MS is going to foot the bill for people to have a playable version of PlayStation if they buy said version of Xbox?

Edit:
I suppose the label might still help communicate that the game will work on any Xbox platform, but if they are removing that type of distinction by focusing on a single Xbox platform, then it does become unnecessary.

The platform is more than just the console. It encompasses desktop PCs, handhelds, and a whole range of devices via xCloud and even third-party game streaming services (GForceNow). Play Anywhere means more than "play the PC version for free if you buy the console version."

The fact is that over the last year, the number of Play Anywhere games, including AAA titles, has grown significantly. But it's clear that not all publishers want to jump through hoops in the current situation (optimizing and creating two versions in different stores). And that's where I say that when publishers only need to create, manage, and maintain a single Xbox version (Magnus console + Magnus PC) in the same store... the current trade-offs and extra costs will cease to exist.

And yes, the Play Anywhere symbol might lose its significance when Xbox console and Xbox PC are one and the same and share the same version... but that's surely what studios and publishers are aiming for to increase support for the platform and the PA initiative.

In fact, I believe that PA is a "temporary" initiative that aims to keep current Xbox console users engaged with the platform during the transition to PC. Play Anywhere is certainly an incentive.

 

[Humdinger]

That strategy would be the third party part they're clinging on to now. Think of how they tried with Epic to topple Apples walled garden. For third parties like themselves. You underestimate MS' drive to be strategic for their own goals but mostly fail because the majority of people dont care about their products while they blame everybody else but themselves. Once their platform failed they attacked the idea of platforms.

Yeah, I mentioned that the third-party strategy is clearly working for them. Otherwise, though, I see them as basically just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping some of it sticks -- more like deranged monkeys than careful, long-term planners. That was my main point to mckmass. I don't think this is some kind of sophisticated 4-D chess. It's more like flailing around -- trying this, trying that, hoping something sticks.

 

[mckmas8808]

Oh know I understood that much. I just didn't think it was a "movement" and it's weird for you to think I'm a part of that because I don't talk about that stuff. I think closed console ecosystems are perfectly fine. Never had an issue with it and I don't think it's a problem that needs fixed.

I do think phones shouldn't have walled gardens though. Those are utility devices much like PCs and laptops and I think Apple should be forced to open up.

I was joking with you, based on your "Get Help" response. I just wanted to put you up on game, that this is the next "new narrative". Many of us on GAF can see these narratives create in real-time. Months or a year before it becomes mainstream.

 

[mckmas8808]

Pretty sure you are smart enough to know Microsoft can't just give games away in the Playstation store w/o paying Sony, but maybe I was wrong about you.

ThatsThePoint.gif

 

[Three]

Yeah, I mentioned that the third-party strategy is clearly working for them. Otherwise, though, I see them as basically just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping some of it sticks -- more like deranged monkeys than careful, long-term planners. That was my main point to mckmass. I don't think this is some kind of sophisticated 4-D chess. It's more like flailing around -- trying this, trying that, hoping something sticks.

They're definitely flailing while drowning (as in constantly changing strategy based on their previous ones failing) but mckmass is right in that they will try to attack "platforms" as part of their long term strategy especially as a publisher.

They've done this through their shills ever since their platform began to fail and they knew they couldn't rely on that anymore. Demonised others by attacking platforms for lack of crossplay (while they blocked it during 360). MS and their PR shills calling exclusives evil/antiquated (while having the most third party exclusive deals during 360 by a long shot). Now they will slowly attack "the evils" of the 30% cut with successful platform holders like PS and steam (despite having done this when they still had a platform to speak of). They have long term strategies but as somebody once put it "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". Their old ones just failed.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

They're definitely flailing while drowning (as in constantly changing strategy based on their previous ones failing) but mckmass is right in that they will try to attack "platforms" as part of their long term strategy especially as a publisher.

They've done this through their shills ever since their platform began to fail and they knew they couldn't rely on that anymore. Demonised others by attacking platforms for lack of crossplay (while they blocked it during 360). MS and their PR shills calling exclusives evil/antiquated (while having the most third party exclusive deals during 360 by a long shot). Now they will slowly attack "the evils" of the 30% cut with successful platform holders like PS and steam (despite having done this when they still had a platform to speak of). They have long term strategies but as somebody once put it "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face". Their old ones just failed.

Bruh, for once, accept pro consumer moves.

 

[mckmas8808]

Bruh, for once, accept pro consumer moves.

What's pro-consumer about it???

 

[Three]

Bruh, for once, accept pro consumer moves.

Nobody said these were bad things but I've already highlighted how they can be truly pro consumer rather than self serving right now, but they won't be because once again it's about serving their current strategy and nothing else.

 

[kevboard]

What's pro-consumer about it???

are you asking what is pro consumer about getting 2 versions of a game with 1 purchase instead of only getting 1 version?

or for advocating for crossplay?

 

[PeteBull]

At this point xbox needs some viral marketting, kinda like this og xbox vid, just 2 chill dudes playing their xbox and a "good boi" who wants to play too (no. it isnt AI generated, its simply old and crazy clip )- then ppl wonder why men die earlier

 

[Three]

Bruh, for once, accept pro consumer moves.

are you asking what is pro consumer about getting 2 versions of a game with 1 purchase instead of only getting 1 version?

or for advocating for crossplay?

The only companies making the proconsumer moves were Valve and PS allowing these things to happen while xbox was failing. Xbox wasn't the one being proconsumer especially as it actively blocked and did these "evil" things while not even having a great majority of players, but just being neck and neck.

 

[kevboard]

The only companies making the proconsumer moves were Valve and PS allowing these things to happen while xbox was failing. Xbox wasn't the one being proconsumer especially as it actively blocked and did these "evil" things while not even having a great majority of players, but just being neck and neck.

it's entirely irrelevant when they did it, that doesn't change the fact that these are pro consumer things.

 

[Astray]

This won't be a problem for the next Xbox, where developers will only have to make one port of the game in order to serve consoles and PCs. Today, supporting both requires two different builds of the game to be prepared and we don't know the terms regarding submission pricing.

Yep, that port will be a Steam version.

People really overestimate how much developers care about Xbox nowadays.

 

[Three]

it's entirely irrelevant when they did it, that doesn't change the fact that these are pro consumer things.

It does because of what being proconsumer means. You can search for "proconsumer" on google:

refers to business practices, policies, or organizations that prioritize the interests, rights, and welfare of the consumer. over maximum corporate profit

I'm just letting you know MS are not proconsumer. They prioritise their own interests even now. It was Valve and PS who prioritised the interests and rights of the consumer for allowing it despite it not being beneficial to them but in fact harmful. MS are only advocating things that are beneficial to themselves.

 

[Humdinger]

They're definitely flailing while drowning (as in constantly changing strategy based on their previous ones failing) but mckmass is right in that they will try to attack "platforms" as part of their long term strategy especially as a publisher.

They've done this through their shills ever since their platform began to fail and they knew they couldn't rely on that anymore. Demonised others by attacking platforms for lack of crossplay (while they blocked it during 360). MS and their PR shills calling exclusives evil/antiquated (while having the most third party exclusive deals during 360 by a long shot). Now they will slowly attack "the evils" of the 30% cut with successful platform holders like PS and steam (despite having done this when they still had a platform to speak of). They have long term strategies but as somebody once put it "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". Their old ones just failed.

Oh, so you guys are talking mostly about PR talking points. I gotcha. I thought you were saying MS had a careful, well-thought out long-term strategy, and this was just step 1 in a grand master plan. If it's just PR talking points designed to help their latest scramble, I can see that.

These things shift all the time, as you say. When one spin fails, they move on to the next.

 

[memoryman3]

Really I think the future of Play Anywhere might involve the cloud.

Right now, if you buy Final Fantasy 7 Remake on Microsoft's Store, you get a cloud version of the game included if you even subscribe to the basic version of GamePass. In a way, I can see this evolve to the fully realised form of Google Stadia, but with local access to your games.

 

[adamsapple]

It does but Valve has done this already decades ago:

Portal 2 PS3 Has Cross-Platform Multiplayer, Free PC Version

Valve Software revealed its Steam-powered PlayStation 3 version of Portal 2 will support PC/Mac-to-PS3 multiplayer, cloud-based storage of PS3 save games and cross-platform chat.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Despite this app server cost they did it as a publisher of games back then. Clearly they are making money on the game sale and eating some cost.

Yes, that's one game that you've brought up before as well.

There are currently 1000+ Play Anywhere games and that list is growing.

Most would call dual ownership for a single purchase a pro-consumer move. Well, most excluding the always ready to argue Three, I suppose

Does anyone here still talk about improved Xbox backward compatibility

Yes. Plenty of people do.

If you're asking why no one's making topics about it every day, it's because they're not adding any more games to it, doesn't mean the ones that are already there are somehow not an example of console BC done right anymore.

 

[kevboard]

It does because of what being proconsumer means. You can search for "proconsumer" on google:



I'm just letting you know MS are not proconsumer. They prioritise their own interests even now. It was Valve and PS who prioritised the interests and rights of the consumer for allowing it despite it not being beneficial to them but in fact harmful. MS are only advocating things that are beneficial to themselves.

being pro consumer and doing a pro consumer move are not the same.

they did something pro consumer. the motivation behind it is entirely irrelevant in this discussion

 

[Three]

Yes, that's one game that you've brought up before as well.

There are currently 1000+ Play Anywhere games and that list is growing.

Way to miss the point by trying to show people how Phils dick is bigger. I was only giving an example of a Valve self published game being free on their own store when bought from somebody elses store. Showing that it is feasible. You don't need to try and PR for MS with this "is massive and growing" nonsense.

being pro consumer and doing a pro consumer move are not the same.

they did something pro consumer. the motivation behind it is entirely irrelevant in this discussion

Yes Valve and PS did something proconsumer. MS did not. That was the point I was making. That is not "irrelevant" to the entire point of the post showing that MS are self serving a business strategy through their PR.

 

[adamsapple]

being pro consumer and doing a pro consumer move are not the same.

they did something pro consumer. the motivation behind it is entirely irrelevant in this discussion

"Bu bu bu Valve/PS did it first for one game a decade ago .. so that makes anything M$ has been doing for years irrelevant"

- Three, probably.


edit: HAH fucking knew it

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Yep, that port will be a Steam version.

People really overestimate how much developers care about Xbox nowadays.

Devs still take xbox seriously, like it or not.

It gets all the games it can get.

Mostly cause PS acts differently under new management I presume. Some years ago, they would get everything made exclusive that was possible.

 

[Bark]

they did something pro consumer. the motivation behind it is entirely irrelevant in this discussion

I disagree with this. pro consumer moves from sketchy companies are always looked as sus. Look at Epic. Taking less than 30% from their store, giving away free games every month. Sometimes the motive outweighs the pro consumer action

 

[mckmas8808]

are you asking what is pro consumer about getting 2 versions of a game with 1 purchase instead of only getting 1 version?

or for advocating for crossplay?

I understand the confusion, because I don't see it as a "pro-consumer" strategy. I view it more as a Multi-Microsoft Device strategy. It's similar to as if you bought Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom and Nintendo "allowed" you to play the game on both the Switch 1 and Switch 2. Or if you bought GT7 and could play it on the PS4 and PS5.

The only difference is MS mask it as something "HUGELY" special because one is on an Xbox console and the other on PC (but ONLY if you buy from the MS PC Store). Which we all know is just Microsoft Windows and their store.

What's so pro-consumer about it?

 

[adamsapple]

I understand the confusion, because I don't see it as a "pro-consumer" strategy. I view it more as a Multi-Microsoft Device strategy. It's similar to as if you bought Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom and Nintendo "allowed" you to play the game on both the Switch 1 and Switch 2. Or if you bought GT7 and could play it on the PS4 and PS5.

The only difference is MS mask it as something "HUGELY" special because one is on an Xbox console and the other on PC (but ONLY if you buy from the MS PC Store). Which we all know is just Microsoft Windows and their store.

Not the same thing. PA gives you access to a game across console(s) (XBO/Series) and PC, as well as include cross-save, cross-progression for those games. Having access across console and PC is not exactly the same as being able to run a copy of Zelda on Switch 1 and Switch 2. Using GT7 as an example, for PS4 standard owners, they had to either pay a small fee to get the upgrade or buy the deluxe 25th anniversary edition, which launched at $90, to get dual ownership. If someone just bought the PS5 standard edition, they would not have retroactive access to the PS4 version.

What's so pro-consumer about it?

Dual ownership across console and PC. Someone who might not get a future Xbox Magnus console can still reap the benefit of the PC copy on any relevant PC hardware.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not the same thing. PA gives you access to a game across console(s) (XBO/Series) and PC, as well as include cross-save, cross-progression for those games. Having access across console and PC is not exactly the same as being able to run a copy of Zelda on Switch 1 and Switch 2. Using GT7 as an example, for PS4 standard owners, they had to either pay a small fee to get the upgrade or buy the deluxe 25th anniversary edition, which launched at $90, to get dual ownership. If someone just bought the PS5 standard edition, they would not have retroactive access to the PS4 version.





Dual ownership across console and PC. Someone who might not get a future Xbox Magnus console can still reap the benefit of the PC copy on any relevant PC hardware.

You keep saying a "PC copy", but you actually mean a "Xbox on PC" copy.

There's a reason the icon exist.....

Microsoft is trying to tell everyone that Xbox on PC, is functionally different than buying games on PC oon Steam. They are showing you all right here! How can some of yall not see the difference? I think the dual entitlement is cool, but it doesn't work the way their PR frames it. They are simply taking advantage of being the defacto #1 OS maker for PC on planet Earth. Smart. Very smart, even. But I don't see the pro-consumer in this at all.

 

[bighugeguns]

Sony is fucked, isn't it.

Whenever anti Xbox narratives are pushed, you always gotta ask, what the fuck blew up at Sony this time?

 

[adamsapple]

You keep saying a "PC copy", but you actually mean a "Xbox on PC" copy.

... and ?

Is "Xbox on PC" not a PC copy? I'm not seeing the distinction.

Microsoft is trying to tell everyone that Xbox on PC, is functionally different than buying games on PC oon Steam.

ok .. and ? Is PC gaming only possible on Steam? I'm not clear what correlation you're trying to draw here. The Win / Xbox PC store is just one of the many launchers on PC, of which Steam is one as well.

They are showing you all right here! How can some of yall not see the difference? I think the dual entitlement is cool, but it doesn't work the way their PR frames it. They are simply taking advantage of being the defacto #1 OS maker for PC on planet Earth. Smart. Very smart, even. But I don't see the pro-consumer in this at all.

" i think dual entitlement is cool but it doesn't work the way their PR frames it"

what does that even mean ??

You're getting dual entitlement on console and PC. It is exactly how the PR frames it. Your personal like/dislike for the WinPC store is irrelevant.

PC gaming =/= just Steam.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

You keep saying a "PC copy", but you actually mean a "Xbox on PC" copy.

There's a reason the icon exist.....

Microsoft is trying to tell everyone that Xbox on PC, is functionally different than buying games on PC oon Steam. They are showing you all right here! How can some of yall not see the difference? I think the dual entitlement is cool, but it doesn't work the way their PR frames it. They are simply taking advantage of being the defacto #1 OS maker for PC on planet Earth. Smart. Very smart, even. But I don't see the pro-consumer in this at all.

Dont treat this as Xbox initiative.

Its the publishers that are giving away a free copy.

Xbox is simply enabling it.

There was a PS logo leak that also hinted that PS might come up with something similar. Nothing official of course.

 

[Det]

Yes. Plenty of people do.

If you're asking why no one's making topics about it every day, it's because they're not adding any more games to it, doesn't mean the ones that are already there are somehow not an example of console BC done right anymore.

That's exactly how you deny reality.

Soon you'll pretend that there weren't a dozen "Xbox fans" who spent a whole year saying that the PS5 specs were all lies from Sony.

For years and years, "Xbox fans" repeated how fundamental backward compatibility was, how Microsoft was pro-consumer for doing it. And that's how Xbox ended up, no substance, just rhetoric repeated on the internet.

Nobody cares about Play Anyware, just like nobody cared about Xbox One's backward compatibility, crossplay, Xbox One's multitasking, etc.

 

[adamsapple]

That's exactly how you deny reality.

Soon you'll pretend that there weren't a dozen "Xbox fans" who spent a whole year saying that the PS5 specs were all lies from Sony.

For years and years, "Xbox fans" repeated how fundamental backward compatibility was, how Microsoft was pro-consumer for doing it. And that's how Xbox ended up, no substance, just rhetoric repeated on the internet.

Nobody cares about Play Anyware, just like nobody cared about Xbox One's backward compatibility, crossplay, Xbox One's multitasking, etc.

Hell of a rant to a simple "yes, people talk about the feature you claim no one talks about" answer.

 

[Astray]

Devs still take xbox seriously, like it or not.

It gets all the games it can get.

Mostly cause PS acts differently under new management I presume. Some years ago, they would get everything made exclusive that was possible.

I mean wait and see lol.

Yakuza Kiwami 3 is the first Yakuza to not be PlayAnywhere. Whatever Microsoft paid devs to do PlayAnywhere is clearly not happening anymore.